BX 1765 
,W78 

















0^ 



vP. 
























C^ . 



0^ 




•^^^■4 .^/bM^^\ '»^i> ««^:^iia'- '-^/.^^ 







0^ 

.1 rf^ 



w^s s 



•.^2^<»' ^^ c 











HO*. 







^°-n^. 




.-io^ 



















r » ' • •- 











.' °o 



o V 



r .' 



-^^0^ 



*bv^ 



THE 

EOPIiE^S RIGHT DEFENDED: 

BEING 

AN EXAMINATION 

OF THE 
OF 

WITHHOLDING THE SCHIPTURES 

FROM THE LAITY. 

TOGETHER WITH A DISCUSSION OF SOME OTHER 
POINTS IN THE ROMISH CONTROVERSY. 



X 



t -<^.- 

^'Search the Scriptures."— /oA/i v. 39. '^Jvl 



^^^^^VX ti^^N,,^ 



TO. WHICH IS APPENDED 

A DISCOURSE ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

BY THE RT. REV. JOHN TILLOTSON, D.D. 
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTEJIB CRY. 



PHILADELPHIA : 

PRINTED BT W. F. GEDDES, NO. 9 LIBEART ST. 

1831. 






Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to wit: 

Be it remembered, that on the seventeenth day of Decem- 
ber, in the fifty -fifth^year of the Independence of the United 
States of America, A. D. 1850, William F. Geddes, of the said 
district, has deposited in this office the title of a book, the right 
whereof he claims as proprietor, in the words following, to wit: 

"The People^s Right Defended, being an examination of the 
Romish principle of withholding the Scriptures from the Laity? 
together with a discussion of some other points in the Romish 
controversy, by *Wickliffe.' * Search the Scriptures/ John v. 
39. To which is appended a Discourse on Transubstantiation, 
by the Right Rev. John Tillotson, D. D., Lord Archbishop of 
Canterbury/' 

In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, 
intituled, *'An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by secur- 
ing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and 
Proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned." 
And also to the Act, entitled, ' *An Act supplementary to an Act, 
entitled 'An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing 
the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Pro- 
prietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned,' 
and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, en- 
graving, and etchiLg, historical and other prints." 

D. CALDWELL, 
Clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



PREFACE. 



The substance of this little volume was prepared 
without the most distant intention of presenting it to the 
public in its present form. It was originally published, 
a few months since, in numbers over the signature of 
<'G.'' in the 'SSouthern Religious Telegraph,'' pub- 
lished at Richmond, Va. 

Solicitations from several sources have again brought 
these numbers before the public, revised and somewhat 
enlarged, to which is now added the "Introduction,^^ 
and Tillotson's Sermon on Transubstantiation. 

If this volume should be the humble means, under 
God, of inducing any under the influence of Romanism, 
to assert, and firmly to maintain, with a proper Christian 
spirit, their unalienable right to read and study for them- 
selves the sacred scriptures; or of preventing any from 
increasing the hazard of their salvation in any way, the 
object and prayers of the Author will be fully answered 

As an humble pioneer, and as an unworthy servant to 
the Bible, in those sections of our country where the 
people's right to read and search the scriptures, is neither 
wholly understood nor fully enjoyed, this little volume 

IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO THE ''AMERICAN 

BIBLE SOCIETY," by 

THE AUTHOR. 

Philadelphia, Dec. 17th, 1830. 



Some of the authorities referred to in the fol- 
lowing pages, are given as quoted by Chillingworth, 
Stillingfleet, Barrow, and others, whose learning and 
veracity stand unimpeached. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Page. 

The Introduction, 5 

Chap. I. Supremacy of the Pope, - - - 19 

II. Exclusive Salvation. - - . - 35 

III. The FACT of withholding the Scriptures, 39 

IV. Same subject continued, - - - 50 
V. The PROPRIETY of withholding the Scriptures, 60 

VI. Same subject continued, - - - 79 

VII. Infallibility of the Church of Rome, - 99 

VIII. Same subject continued, - - - 124 

IX. Transubstantiation, - - - 151 

Tillotson's Discourse, 167 

Appendix, 213 



INTRODUCTION. 



The importance of an acquaintance with the Ro- 
mish Controversy is now beginning to be more justly 
estimated among those who are set for the defence of 
the truth, than it has been for a long time. When we 
look at the late movements of the ''Holy See" in refer- 
ence to our beloved country; when we remember that 
the Tyrants of Europe, viewing Papacy as the most 
successful instrument that could be employed to crush 
the liberties and ensure the dovvnfall of this happy peo- 
ple, would eagerly aid in the propagation of Popish 
principles throughout our land; when we look at the 
vigorous and systematic exertions now making by that 
church, from Maine to Florida, and from the Atlantic 
to the farthest western settlement; and when, in con- 
nection with this, we look at the state of society and the 
condition of the people in those countries where this 
church is established, or has a superior influence; the 
importance of a correct and intimate acquaintance with 
Romish principles and Popish policy, rises in magnitude 
equalled only by the preciousness of civil and religious 
liberty, and the salvation of immortal souls. I could 
not present this subject in a more striking light than by 
quoting the following extract from a review of Blanco 
White's Letters on Catholicism, by the Rev. Ashbel 
Green, d.d. ll.d. in his able "Mvocate^^ for Novem- 
ber, 1826 : 

''For more than a century past, (says Dr. Green,) the 
controversy between Papists and Protestants has been 



INTRODUCTION. 



but little agitated— little, in comparison with what had 
taken place in the two preceding centuries. The cause 
of this cessation of arg-uing on the points litigated so ar- 
iientlj by the Protestant reformers and their opponents, 
is not obscure — Argument on both sides had been ex- 
hausted, and proselytes, in any considerable numbers, 
could no longer be made. The habits of education had 
generally fixed both Protestants and Papists in the faith 
of their fathers; and the influence of both was so bound- 
ed, not only by moral causes, but also by the character, 
and establishments, and enactments of states and king- 
doms, that any such changes as were witnessed in the 
time of Luther, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, 
were no longer to be expected. 

''Within a few years, however, the great and inter- 
esting changes which have had such a mighty influence 
on the political state of the civilized world, and which 
have materially altered the whole aspect of society in a 
great part of Europe and America, have already given 
some animation, and are likely, ere long, to give much 
more to the long dormant controversy. Popery has 
received a rude shock both in the old world and the 
new; and it is now mustering all its force, and putting 
forth all its energies, and all its artifice, to recover the 
ground it has lost; and it is so favoured and fostered by 
secular power in Europe, as to assume an appearance 
truly formidable. The present occupant of the papal 
throne, with talents superior to many of his predeces- 
sors, seems to possess a full share of their spirit and zeal. 
He has renewed the order of the Jesuits, denounced 
Bible societies, encouraged and patronized a most 
splendid jubilee, with all its mummery of pardons and 
indulo-ences, exerted all his influence to stimulate the 
exertions of his agents even in Protestant states, and has 
already sent a pretty large sum of money to the United 



INTRODUCTION* 7 

States, to support missionaries and to aid popish institu- 
tions. 

''In these circumstances, it certainly behooves Protes- 
tants to look warily about them; to observe attentively 
the posture and manoeuvres of their adversaries; to see 
tliat their arms of defence are in good order; and to be 
in all respects prepared for a new conflict. That con- 
flict, we do verily believe, is at hand. To speak with- 
out a figure, we are fully persuaded that the Popish con- 
troversy must, and will be speedily renewed, not 
only in Europe, but in our own country; and that our 
young Theologians will need to study no subject of con- 
troversy more carefully than tliis, and our churches and 
people to be warned of no danger, more than that to 
which they will be exposed from popish artifice and se- 
duction. 

''It is our happiness to live in a land which admits of 
no religious establishment, nor of any persecution, of a 
civil kind, for conscience sake. In this we do most 
unfeignedly rejoice. If by a wish we could impose civil 
disabilities, or restrictions of any kind, on the Roman 
Catholics, or on any other sect, that wish sj:iould not be 
formed. We believe it to be as contrary to the spirit 
of true Christianity as to the civil liberty which is the 
glory of our land, that any form of religious faith should 
be more favored than another by secular authority. ^^ 
Truth has the best chance for a triumph, when she is 
left to the exercise of her own weapons — reason, argu- 
ment, and experience. In our humble judgment, the 
Roman Catholic Religion would drop all its frowning 
aspect on the peace of society in Britain, if there were 
no established church in that country. The author of 
the work before us, does indeed assert it to be an "indu- 
bitable fact, that sincere Roman Catholics cannot con- 



INTRODUCTION. 



scientiously h^ tolerant ;^^ and it therefore might be argu- 
ed, that we ought to guard by law, against their obtain- 
ing an ascendancy in the United States; lest, in that 
event, they should destroy the religious freedom which 
we so highly prize. But we have really no apprehen- 
sions on this subject. Suppose it to be as Mr. White 
asserts, (and we cannot refuse to admit that he is better 
acquainted with the genuine spirit of Popery than we 
are,) still we are satisfied, that any attempt to impose 
civil restrictions on the Roman Catholics, would do infi- 
nitely more harm than good. It would indicate that 
Protestants were afraid to trust their cause to the in- 
fluence of truth alone. For ourselves, we have no such 
fear,— Give us a fair field of argument, and we ask for 
nothing more; and with this, we are confident that our 
country has nothing to dread. 

But while we are opposed to all persecution, we are 
equally opposed to indifference and a misnamed charity, 
in relation to this important mr.tter. We question not 
that there have been, and now are, many individuals of 
real piety in the Roman Catholic communion; and 
yet we conscientiously believe that Popery is the ''Man 
of sin," of the New Testament. Taken as a system, 
it is corrupt in the extreme, and dangerous to the souls 
of men, beyond what can easily be described. It is there- 
fore not to be expected that those who thus regard it, 
should not do every thing which they lawfully may, to 
prevent its prevalence and to unmask its delusions. We 
are bound to this by every principle and every consi- 
deration, which should have influence with us as friends 
to ''the truth as it is in Jesus." We are not to be told 
that this is bigotry and narrow-mindedness; and that 
all Christian sects would better take care of themselves 
and let their neighbours alone. Will the Romanists 



INTRODUCTION. y 

do this? No — they will ^'compass sea and land to make 
one proselyte." And truly they cannot consistently 
act otherwise, while they believe, as they do, that there 
is no salvation out of the pale of their church. Self de- 
fence, therefore, demands from Protestants the counter- 
action of the efforts of Popery, and the exposure of its 
arts and its abominations; and still more imperiously is 
it demanded by a regard to the everlasting well-being of 
their fellow men. He is unworthy of the name of a 
Christian who can witness attempts to propagate senti- 
ments which he sincerely believes, are calculated to 
lead men to perdition, and not resist such attempts, and 
make every exertion in his power, to prevent the adop- 
tion of such sentiments. It should indeed be always re- 
collected that genuine christian zeal is entirely a differ- 
ent thing from acrimony, reviling, and slander; and that 
a good cause will not gain, but lose, whenever anger, or 
ill temper, or exaggeration is substituted in pleading it, 
for facts and arguments. We are not to hate those 
whom we believe to be erroneous. But it is perfectly 
consistent with wishing them well, nay, it is a part of 
benevolence itself, if rightly understood, to expose theij. 
errors, and to prevent to the utmost the mischief which 
they seek to effect. This therefore, according to our 
ability, we are determined to do fearlessly^ and yet we 
trust charitably. — We say charitably, for true charity 
requires us to love our neighbour as ourselves; and we 
cannot do so, if, as we have said, we do not endeavour 
to save him froaa ruinous error; we cannot even love the 
propagators of error as we ought to love them, if we ne- 
glect when we have opportunity, to show them distinct- 
ly wherein they are wrong — wherein they are acting in- 
juriously both to themselves and to others. " 

With regard to the exposure of Popish errors and su- 

b2 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

perstitions, though it is clearly the duty of those who are 
the guardians of the truth and the purity of the church, 
to make this exposure on all suitable occasions, yet there 
exists in the minds of Protestants, of the present day, a 
strange and unaccountable squeamishness on this subject. 
Illiberality of the blackest kind, and a want of charity 
wholly unpardonable, is by Protestants^ attributed to 
that preacher or writer who attempts to exhibit to the 
world the corruptions and abominations of the Romish 
church; you may write and preach as much against the 
corruption of all other denominations, as you please, and 
even those whose creed, or church order you attack will 
be disposed to let you pass without censure; but say a 
word against the Church of Rome, and you are at once 
stigmatized as illiberal and sectarian. Yes, Roman 
Catholics may write and preach what they please against 
Protestants of all denominations, they may denounce us 
all as worthy of hell, (purgatory being too good for such 
arch heretics;) they may anathametise us from Sabbath 
to Sabbath as they actually do, and'declare salvation im- 
possible for any of us — -and it all displays, no want of 
charity, no illiberality in them! Such sickly, spurious 
liberality as this, should find no place among those who 
believe the church of Rome to be the ''mother of Har- 
lots,'' and the Pope, the ''man of sin." Let the person 
and property of every Papist, be as sacred as ours, but 
let his religious creed and principles be subject to the 
same investigation, and the same scrutiny: let them be 
secured in the full enjoyment of every privilege both civil 
and religous, but let those who differ from them in re- 
ligious opinions be permitted, without censure and the 
charge'of illiberality, to expose those errorsinthe doctrine 
and practice of the Romish church, which ajBTect so seri- 
ously the privileges of the people and abridge so danger- 



INTRODUCTION. 1 1 

ously the right of conscience. We ask no more from 
fellow Protestants, than what we freely grant to all, both 
Protestants and Papists, viz. the right of entertaining and 
freely expressing our opinions on their creed, without 
incurring, in its legitimate exercise, the charge of illibe- 
rality or sectarian feeling. We complain not of the nu- 
merous periodicals conducted by Papists for the avowed 
object of exposing and condemning the heresy of all who 
reject their creed. We seek no coverfor the truth as we 
hold it^ we shrink from no investigation of the creed 
which we profess; and we call no man illiberal or un- 
charitable who subjects our religious creed and princi- 
ples to the severest scrutiny and to the closest examina- 
tion; and surely it is ungenerous in Papists, and no less 
partial and strangely inconsistent in Protestants, to raise 
the cry of persecution against those, who subject the 
Romish creed and principles to the same scrutiny and 
examination. 

There is a very popular consideration urged with 
gi'eat earnestness by Papists on the minds of those who 
are ''halting between two opinions"— whether to be- 
come a Papist — or remain a Protestant. It is this : that 
in as much as Protestants admit the possibility of salva- 
tion in the Romish Church, and as Papists utterly deny 
the existence of such a possibility out of it, it is the 
safest to be a Romanist; and on this ground some have 
abandoned the religion by which their fathers were con- 
ducted to heaven, and have connected themselves with 
the Church of Rome. ''According to this principle," 
observes the learned Archbishop Tillotson, writing on 
this very subject, "it is always safest to be on the un- 
charitable side^ and yet uncharitableness is as bad an 
evid'Cnce, either of a true christian, or a true church, as 
a man would wish. "* This popular argument so indus- 
* Archb. Tillotson's Work, vol. I. p. 126. 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

triously used by Papists, may be thus stated in its strong- 
est light: both Protestants and Papists unite in admitting 
that those in communion with the Romish Church may 
be saved, but only Protestants admit that those in com- 
munion with their churches may be saved, therefore it is 
safest to belong to that church in which all parties agree 
that there is salvation. I cannot give a better answer 
to this argument than that already given by Archbishop 
Tillotson above quoted. ''For answer to this," says 
the learned Archbishop, ''I shall endeavour to shew, 
that this is so far from being a good argument that it is 
so intolerably weak and sophistical that any considerate 
man ought to be ashamed to be caught by it. For either 
it is good of itself and sufficient to persuade a man to re- 
linquish our Church, and to pass over to theirs j without 
entering into the merits of the cause on either side, and 
without comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both 
the Churches together, or it is not. If it be not suffi- 
cient of itself to persuade a man to leave our Church, 
without comparing the Doctrines on both sides, then it is 
to no purpose, and there is nothing got by it. For if 
upon examination and comparing of Doctrines the one 
appear to be true and the other /«/5e, this alone is a suf- 
ficient inducement to any man to cleave to that Church 
where the true Doctrine is found; and then there is no 
need of this argument. 

" If it be said that this argument is good in itself with- 
out the examination of the Doctrines of both Churches; 
this seems a very strange thing for any man to affirm, 
TTiatit is reason enough to a man to be of any Churchy 
whatever her Doctrines and Practices be^ if she do but 
damn those that differ from her^ and if the Church that 
differs from her do but allow a possibility of salvation 
in her Communion. 

*'But as they who use this argument pretend that it 



INTRODUCTION. 



is sufficient of itself, I shall shew the M^eakness of the 
principle upon which this argument relies; and that is 
this, that whatever different parties in religion agree in, 
/ is safest to he chosen. The true consequence of which 
principle if it be driven to the head, is to persuade men 
to forsake Christianity, and to make them take up in Ijie 
principles of natural Religion^ for in these all Religions 
do agree. For if this princijjle be true, and signify any 
thing, it is dangerous to embrace any thing wherein the 
several parties in Religion differ; because that only is 
safe and prudent to be chosen wherein all agree. So 
that this argument, if the foundation of it be good, will 
persuade farther than those who make use of it desire it 
should do; for it will not only make men forsake the 
Protestant Religion^ hut Popery too ', and which is much 
more considerable, Christianity itself. 

''I will give some parallel instances by which it will 
clearly be seen that this argument concludes false. The 
Donatists denied the Baptism of the Catholics to be good, 
but the Catholics acknowledged the Baptism of the Do- 
natists to be valid. So that both sides were agreed that 
the Baptism of the Donatists was good, therefore the 
safest way for St. Austin ^ltlA otk^r Catholics (according 
to this argument) was to be baptised again by the Do- 
natists, because by the acknowledgment of both sides 
Baptism among them was valid. 

" But to come nearer to the Church of Rome, Seve- 
ral in that Church hold the personal Infallibility of the 
Pope^ and the lawfulness of deposing and killing Kings 
for Heresy to be de fide^ that is, necessary Articles of 
Faith, and consequently, that whoever does not believe 
them cannot be saved. But a great many Papists though 
they believe these things to be no matters of Faith, yet 
they think those that hold them may be saved, and they 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

are generally very favourable towards them. But now, 
according to this argument^ they ought all to be of their 
opinion in these points because both sides are agreed 
tliat they that hold them may he saved; but one side posi- 
tively says that men cannot he saved if they do not hold 
them. 

'' St. Paul acknowledged the possihility of the salva- 
tion of those who huilt hay and stubhle upon thefoimda- 
tion of Christianity^ that they might he saved, though 
with great difficulty, and as it were out of the fire. 
But now among those builders with hay and stubble 
there were those who denied the possibility of St. PauPs 
salvation and of those who were of his mind. We are 
told of some who built the Jewish Ceremonies and ob- 
servances upon the foundation of Christianity, and said 
that unless men were Circumcised and kept the Law oj 
Moses they could not be saved. So that by this argu- 
ment St. Paid and his followers ought to have gone over 
to those Judaizing Christians^ because it was acknow- 
ledged on both sides that they might be saved. But 
these Judaizing Christians were as uncharitable to vSt. 
Paul and other Christians, as the Church of Rome is 
now to us, for they said positively that they could not he 
saved. But can any man think that St. Paul would 
have been moved by this argument, to leave a safe and 
certain way of salvation for that which was only possi- 
ble, and that with great difficulty and hazard? The ar- 
gument you see is the very same, and yet it concludes 
the wrong way^ which plainly shews that it is a contin- 
gent argument^ and concludes uncertainly and by 
chance, and therefore no man ought to be moved by it. 

''If this argument were good, then by this trick a 
man may bring over all the world to agree with him in 
an error which another does not account damnable, what- 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

ever it be, provided he do but damn all those that do 
not hold it^ and there wants nothing but confidence and 
uncharitctbleness to do this. But is there any sense, 
that another man's boldness and want of charity should 
be an argument to move me to be of his opinion? I can- 
not illustrate this better, than by the difference between 
a skilful Physician and a Mountebank. A learned and 
a skilful Physician is modest, and speaks justly of 
things: he says, that such a method of cure which he has 
directed is safe; and withal, that that which the Mounte- 
bank prescribes may possibly do the work, but there is 
great hazard and danger in it; but the Mountebank^ who 
never talks of any think less than Infallible cures^ (and 
always the more Mountebank the stronger pretence to 
Infallibility) he is positive that that method which the 
Physician prescribes will destroy the patient, but his 
receipt is infallible and never fails. Is there any reason 
in this case, that this man shall carry it merely by his 
confidence? And yet if this argument be good, the 
safest way is to reject the Physician'^ s advice and to 
stick to the Mountebank^ s* For both sides are agreed, 
that there is a possibility of cure in the Mountebank"^ s 
metliod, but not in the Physician^ s; and so the whole 
force of the argument lies in the confidence of an igno- 
rant man. 

'^ Again, this argument is very unfit to work upon 
those to whom it is propounded: For either they believe 
we say true in this, or not. If they think we do not, 
they have no reason to be moved by what we say. If 
tliey think we do, why do they not take in all that we 
say in this matter.^ Namely, that though it be possible 
for some in the Communion of the Roman Church to be 
saved, yet it is very hazardous; and that they are in a 
safe condition already in our Church. And why then 



16 INTRODUCTION. 

should a hare possibility^ accompanied with infinite and 
apparent hazard, be an argument to any man to run in- 
to that danger? 

''Lastly, this argument is very improper to be urged 
by those who make use of it. Half of the strength of it 
lies in this, that we Protestants acknowledge that it is 
possible a Papist may be saved. But why should they 
lay any stress upon this? What matter is it what we 
Heretics say, who are so damnably mistaken in all other 
things? Methinks if there were no other reason, yet 
because we say it, it should seem to them to be unlikely 
to be true. But I perceive when it serves for their pur- 
pose we have some little credit and authority among 
them."* 

It is undoubtedly every man's duty, who has ability 
and capacity for it, to endeavour to understand the 
grounds of his religion, for the better any man under- 
stands the grounds and reasons of those doctrines which 
he professes to believe, the more firmly will he be es- 
tablished in the truth; the more resolute will he be in 
the day of trial; and the better able to withstand the arts 
and assaults of cunning adversaries, and the fierce 
storms of persecution. And on the contrary, that man 
will soon be moved from his stedfastness, who never ex- 
amined the grounds and reasons of his belief: when it 
comes to the trial, he that has but little to say for his 
religion, will probably do and suffer as little for it. 

"I have often wondered," says Archbishop Tillotson, 
''why the People in the Church of Rome do not suspect 
their Teachers and Guides to have some ill design upon 
them, when they do so industriously debar them of the 
means of Knowledge, and are so very loth to let them 
understand what it is that we have to say against their 
*Archb. Tillotson's Works, rol. 1. p. 125. 



INTRODUCTION. 17 

Religion. For can any thing in the world be more sus- 
picious, than to persuade men, to put out their eyes, 
upon promise that they will help them to a much better 
and more faithful Guide? If any Church, any Profession 
of Men, be unwilling their Doctrines should be exposed 
to Trial, it is a certain sign they know something by 
them that is faulty, and which will not endure the light. 
This is the account which our Saviour gives us in a like 
case; it was because mens deeds were evil that they loved 
darkness rather than Ught, For every one that doeth 
evil hateth the light; neither cometh he to the lights lest 
his deeds should be reproved: But he that doeth the truth 
cometh to the lights that his deeds may be made mani- 
fest that they are wrought in God.^^'^ 
* Archb. Tillotson's Works, vol. 1. p. 233. 



CHAPTER 1. 

SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

The Pope of Rome claims to be the vicar of Christ, 
the supreme head of his church upon earth, and the suc- 
cessor of Peter. This is a high and important claim, 
and should, therefore, rest upon the most indubitable 
foundation. It is a vital and cardinal point in the Papal 
system, and if supported by truth ought to be acknow- 
ledged by the whole world; but if not, it should be 
abandoned by those who are its advocates. To an ex- 
amination of the merits of this claim, we shall now direct 
the reader's attention. 

The supremacy of the Pope is argued from his being 
the successor of Peter. Here two difficulties present 
themselves, the one is— that there is no good evidence 
that Peter ever was at Rome. It certainly does not ap« 
pear from scripture; indeed, there is nothing in scrip- 
ture which would lead to such a supposition. Paul 
wrote one Epistle to Rome, and five from Rome, yet he 
makes no mention of Peter being there, and in his Epis- 
tle to the Coll. iv. 11., after naming several, adds 'Hhese 
only are my fellow workers, unto the Kingdom of God, 
which have been a comfort unto me. " Peter was not at 
Rome when Paul said " at my first answer no man stood 
with me, but all men forsook me."* He was not there 
just before Paul's death, who writes to Timothy that 
all the brethren did salute him, and naming many of 
them he omits Peter.t There is no evidence from scrip- 
ture that he ever was at Rome; and it is far from being 

' 2 Tim. iv. 16, I? Tiip,. iv, U% 



*9 



20 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

probable that he would have visited heathen Rome and 
have said nothing about it, and have given no account of 
his labours there ^ and as the evidence of scripture is 
negatively against his being there, the burden of proof 
is upon the shoulders of those who assert the fact. But 
admitting he was there, still there is no good evidence 
of his ever having been Bishop of Rome. Here then you 
will perceive are two points to be proved. It is not 
enough that it be shown he was there, but it must be in- 
contestibly proved ihdii he was Bishop of Rome, 

The only shadow of proof is that from Eusebius, who 
states that he presided at Rome twenty-five years. But 
Eusebius professedly gives the whole of his statement 
on the authority of Irenseus who flourished in the second 
century.* It is ultimately from Irenaeus that we learn 
any thing of the early history of the Roman See, and 
he gives no such statement that Peter was ever Bishop 
of Rome, or that he handed down his divine prerogative, 
(whatever that might be) to his successors in that dio- 
cese, t On the contrary he tells us that the two apostles, 
Peter and Paul, jointly founded the church at Rome— - 
and when thus founded they jointly delivered the Epis- 
copate of it to Linus. '^ Fundentes igitur et instruentes 
beati Apostoli (Petrus et Paulus) Ecclesiam (Roman- 
am, ) Lino episcopatum administrandse ecclesiae tradide- 
runt. Succedit autem ei Anaclutus, etc."i Peter and 
Paul are certainly represented here as both and equally 
engaged in the performance of certain acts, viz: found- 
ing a church and delivering the episcopate of it to ano- 
ther, and if so, they did it jointly. The word jointly, 
therefore, as used in the free translation given above, 
does not refer to the manner in which the authority passed 
from them to Linus; but to the manner in which the 

* See Eusb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 2, 4. lib. v. c. 5, 6. 

-(■See Fab. DiflP. Rom. p. 258. tlren, adv. Haer lib, iii c. 3. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. SI 

Apostles acted in delivering that authority; namely, 
they did not deliver it singly but jointly, for surely the 
conjunction which connects Paul with Peter in the per- 
formance of this work, is a copulative, and expresses a 
joint action. Faber says that with respect to either of 
the two co-founders ever having been Bishop of Rome, 
Irenaeus is totally silent: And he understands Irenasus 
as saying that these Apostles acted in this matter in vir- 
tue oiih^iv joint authority. 

It is worthy of note, says Faber, that, in the Aposto-^ 
lie Constitutions^ the person who appointed Linus the 
first bishop of Rome, is said to have been St. Paul. 
Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46. This statement, though 
it varies from the more full account given by Irenaeus, 
yet does not absolutely contradict it. For, if Linus 
were appointed the first bishop of Rome by Paul and 
Peter, he was doubtless so appointed by the authority 
of Paul; though Paul, in transacting the business, did 
not act singly hwt jointly. Yet the circumstance is re- 
markable: for since the name of Peter could be wholly 
omitted in an account of the foundation of the Roman 
church, and since the consecration of Linus could have 
been nakedly ascribed to another person^ such a circum- 
stance clearly shews, how little stress could have been 
laid in the early ages upon the imagined primacy of Pe- 
ter and his alleged Roman successors. On the suppo- 
sition, that the Roman church was jointly founded hy 
Peter and Paul, and on the additional supposition, 
that the sentiments of the early ages respecting the pri- 
macy of Peter corresponded with the sentiments of 
modern Latins, it is evident, that, in common parlance, 
though Linus would often be said to have been simply 
appointed by Peter, he would never be said to have 
been simply appointed by Paul. The language of th^ 

c3 



22 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

Apostolic Constitutions would never, I apprehend, be 
adopted by a zealous Latin of the present day.* 

What Irenaeus says is admitted, that Paul and Peter 
founded the Church of Rome and delivered the episco- 
pate of it to Linus. If so, then Linus can not be said 
to succeed Peter, for if Peter assisted Paul or took any 
part in delivering the episcopate to Linus, he was not 
yet dead, and consequently Linus must have been made 
Bishop by Peter. Now if Peter was Bishop of Rome at 
this time, there must have been two Bishops at the same 
time. 

If Peter consecrated Linus, Bishop of Rome, Peter 
did not die Bishop of Rome, or there were two Bishops 
of Rome j and if Peter did not die Bishop of Rome then 
Linus was not his successor in the same sense in which 
Anacletus was the successor of Linus, which at once de- 
stroys the whole Papal cause. Again, if Peter did not 
die Bishop of Rome, he must have been, before his death, 
a suttragan of Linus; that is, the inspired Apostle Peter, 
the vicar of Christ, the chief of the Apostles, the rock 
on which the Church is built, was the suffragan of an 
uninspired Bishop of Rome ! Such a supposition is equal- 
ly destructive to the Papal cause. Is it said that Peter 
having resigned the office for a jtime, resumed it again 
before his death.^ If so, did he hold the office jointly with 
him who was inducted at his resiraation.^ Then there 
were two Bishops of Rome at the same time; or did he 
depose the Bishop in office when he resumed it.^ Then 
lie was the successor to that Bishop in the same sense in 
which that Bishop was his successor; but this in Bellar- 
mine's opinion was plainly intolerable.! One of four 
things, therefore, is true, either Peter never was Bishop 

* See Fab. Diff. Rom. p. 259— note. 

f Petrum Apostolum sucessisse in Episcopatu Antiocheno ali- 
cui ex dlscipulis, quod est plane intolerandum. Bell. lib. ii. 6. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 23 

of Rome, which is far the most probable of all, or he and 
Linus were Bishops of Rome at the same time, which, it 
is admitted, would be contrary to all church order; or 
he resigned his office at the consecration of Linus, and 
therefore did not die Bishop of Rome; or he resumed it 
again after such resignation, and then either governed 
jointly with the Bishop then in office or deposed him— 
any one of which suppositions is equally fatal to the 
claim of the Pope of Rome. 

Faber also offers this argument — ''If then the ^rst 
Bishop of each apostolic church was the person, to whom 
in the first instance the apostolic founder of that church 
committed the episcopate of it; Linus being the person 
to whom in the^r^^ instance the two apostolic founders 
of the Roman Church committed the episcopate of that 
church, must clearly have been the first Bishop of 
Rome. "^ 

Eusebius is quoted by Romanists as saying that ''Li- 
nus was the first, after Peter, who obtained the episco- 
pacy of the Roman Church." But this is not the whole 
of the sentence. The historian says he had declared 
this before (jam antea declaratum est.)t Now where has 
Eusebius made this declaration? Nowhere, but in chap- 
ter 2 of the same book, viz: "after the martyrdom of 
Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who obtained the 
episcopacy of the Roman Church." We are now able 
to understand what is meant by the expression '^ after 
Peter" in the 4th chapter. It means after his martyr- 
dom. But is it logical to infer that because Linus was 
made Bishop of Rome after the martyrdom of Peter, 
therefore Peter was Bishop of Rome! Suppose a his- 
torian should say that Pope Leo was the first Pope after 
the death of Napoleon, would it be logical to infer from 

♦Faber's Diff. Rom. p. 259. 

f Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3, c. 4. 



24 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

hence that Napoleon was Pope of Rome? — It is no where 
said that Linus succeeded (succedit) Peter.-— Besides 
Eusebius, in lib. iii, c. 2, writes thus, '' Linus vero pri- 
mum post Petri et Pauli marturium, Romanse ecclesiae 
episcopatum sortitus est." Now the idea, I think, con- 
tained in this sentence is, that Linus was the very first 
Bishop that Rome ever had: and this is confirmed by the 
fact that Clemens is repeatedly asserted to be the third 
who obtained the episcopacy of the Roman Church. But 
Anacletus succeeded Linus, so that if Peter was Bishop 
of Rome, Clemens was the fourth and not the third, 
Irenaeus* says that Clemens obtained the episcopacy the 
third from the Apostles (ab Apostolis) not from Peter; 
here he is represented as the third in succession from the 
Apostles; and were the Apostles Bishops of Rome? It 
is tlierefore just as logical to infer that the ' 'Apostles" 
were Bishops of Rome as that Peter alone was. 

The same also is true in regard to the Episcopate of 
Antioch. It is admitted that Peter was Bishop of An- 
tioch as much as he ever was of Rome; but Eusebius says 
that Evodiits was the first Bishop of Antioch. t The 
same is affirmed by other writers, who say that Evodiu^ 
was first entrusted with the Episcopate of Antioch by 
the Apostles, t 

If a plain, honest, unprejudiced reader, who had never 
heard of Peter's claim to be Bishop of Rome, were re- 
quired to say which of the Apostles could make out the 
fairest claim to that Episcopate, there can be no doubt 
but that he would decide in favour of Paul, for it cer- 
tainly would be a far less difficult task to make him out 
the Bishop of Rome than Peter. 

The other difficulty is, that even admitting Peter was 
Bishop of Rome, it does not follow that he was superior 

* Lib. iii. c. 3. f Ecc. His. iii. 22. 

4 See Barrow's Works, vol. I, p. 605, and his authorities. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 25 

to other Bishops; this is yet to heproved. Romanists in 
endeavouring to substantiate the Pope's claim to supre- 
macy, generally waste all their time and strength in la- 
bouring to prove the supremacy of Peter, and keep as far 
oiFthe other difficulty as possible, and artfully endeavour 
to direct all the attention of their readers to this last 
mentioned point. But I call upon the abettors of this 
claim to establish the fact that Peter was Bishop of 
Rome; they assert the fact, and the very idea of the 
Pope's supremacy is an idle tale unless this be a fact. I 
will not be satisfied, therefore, with mere probability 
and plausible conjecture. I demand (what I have a 
right to demand, since, as a Protestant, I am anathe- 
matized for not believing it,) historical demonstration. 
Let us have such evidence as would convince any ra- 
tional mind without the aid of ghostly authority and 
ecclesiastical menaces. 

But let us examine the pretended supremacy of Peter, 
and here we would observe that Peter never claimed su- 
premacy for himself. In his Epistles he styles himself 
merely an apostle^ not a Pope^ an archbishop, &c. In 
one place he calls himself an Elder ^ ''I exhort you," 
says he, ^^ who am also an elder." 

And if Peter ever had been made superior in office to 
the other Apostles, would not the time when he was in- 
vested with that authority, and the manner and circum- 
stances of his instalment have been mentioned.^ But 
Luke, who tells he '^-had a perfect understanding of all 
things from the very first ^^^ and who undertook to write 
in order, those things which were most surely believed, 
makes not the sliohtest mention of these thinsrs. 

Our Lord, so far from creating any superiority of one 
Apostle above the rest, discountenances the very desire 
for such a pre-eminence. When James, and John his 
beloved disciple, applied to be thus distinguished with 



£6 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

pre-eminence, he rejected their application and declared 
them incapable of such a preferment. 

On another occasion we find the Apostles disputing 
among themselves who should be the greatest, and ap- 
plying to our Lord to settle the question; here are two 
things to be noticed: 1st, Christ discountenanced all 
idea of the superiority of one over the rest, by setting a 
little child in their midst and declaring that whosoever 
humbled himself as that little child, the same was the 
greatest. Humility was here set in contrast to the ar- 
rogance of such a claim to superiority as is now made 
for Peter. 2d. The next thing to be observed is, that 
the Apostles must have been very ignorant of Peter's 
supremacy if it really existed, since they disputed among 
themselves to whom a supremacy belonged. Why did 
not Peter assert his claim and end the dispute by refer- 
ring to his instalment as supreme Apostle? If the su- 
premacy of Peter was so soon lost as to become a matter 
of dispute among the Apostles, no wonder it has never 
been found since 5 and if Christ, upon application made 
by the Apostles, refused to assert and sanction Peter's 
Supremacy and thus decide the question that divided 
the Apostles, it is great presumption in any church to 
make that decision. 

Peter's supremacy can not be argued from those words 
of Christ, '* whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be 
bound in heaven," for in John xx, 23, he says the same 
to all the apostles. 

This authority to bind and loose is derived from the 
gift of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. But Origin 
says, ''are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given by 
the Lord to Peter alone, and shall none other of the 
blessed ones receive them.^ But if this, *I will give 
thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, be common,' 
how also are not all the things common, which were 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 27 

spoken before, or are added as spoken to Peter."* To 
the same point is the opinion of Theophylact, who says 
' ' although it be spoken to Feter alone, ' I will give thee, ' 
yet it is given to all the Apostles, "t It was the opinion 
of several of the fathers that this and similar expressions 
were made to Peter as the representative of the rest of 
the Apostles and of the church. J 

As to the injunction, ''feed my sheep," as addressed 
to Peter: the thrice repetition of it by our Lord, with 
the enquiry if he loved him, was to remind him of his 
thrice denial of his Lord. But the injunction itself, 
though made to Peter personally, was yet an injunction 
to all Pastors. ''When it is said to Peter," says Au- 
gustine, "it is said to all, feed my sheep. "§ '* Which 
sheep," says Ambrose, "and which flock, not only then 
did St. Peter receive, but also with him all we Priests 
did receive it."|| 

Paul acknowledges no supremacy in Peter, for he 
calls himself not a whit behind the chiefest apostle. In 
his Epistle to the Galatians, he devotes nearly two 
whole chapters to the sole purpose of showing that he 
was equal with Peter in the dignity of the apostleship^ 
and when he went to Peter he professed no subjection, 
and Peter required no submission, but gave him the 
right hand of fellowships and it will be recollected that 
when Peter acted with some degree of duplicity at An- 
tioch, Paul rebuked him to his face, and Peter stood 
corrected by the proof. 

Some have argued the supremacy of Peter from the 
fact that he is named first in the catalogue of the Apos- 
tles and in the narrations concerning him and them. 
But this is not always the case. In Gall. ii. 9, James 

• Origin in Math. 16, p. 275. fTheoph. in loco. 

i See Barrow's Works, vol. f, p. 585. 

§ Aug. de Agone Christ. 30. i Ambr. de Sacerd. 2, 



28 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

is first mentioned, then Cephas or Peter afterwards. In 
1st Cor. iii. 22, Paul is first mentioned and Cephas 
third. In 1st Cor. ix. 5, the Apostles and brethren are 
mentioned before Cephas. In John i. 44, Andrew is 
mentioned before Peter. So that the argument drawn 
from tliis source proves nothing, and can only operate 
on the minds of those who are not permitted to examine 
the scriptures for themselves. 

The great text on which this supremacy is founded is 
the one in Matt, xvi, 18— ''Thoa art Peter and upon 
this rock I will build my church." Let us give this 
text a critical examination, which in substance is taken 
from the ''Scotch Protestant." Peter is sometimes cal- 
led Cephas which is a Syrian word, and sometimes as in 
this i^^i<i Petros which is a Greek word, both meaning a 
Stone, There is a difference between Petros and Petra^ 
they are different words/and^of a different gender. The 
former means a moveable stone, which was a very appro- 
priate name for an apostle who denied his master three 
times, who at one time cut off the ear of the high priest's 
servant and was ready to fight for his master, and at 
another time undertook to reprove him to his face, and 
who acted with duplicity at Antioch, eating with the 
Gentiles until certain came down from James, when he 
secretly withdrew. The latter word Petra means an 
immoveable rock^ this may have referred to Christ him- 
self, and surely it was an appropriate name for him in 
whom there is no variableness. We contend that it was 
on Him that the church should be built, and that conse- 
quently, the gates of hell should not prevail against it 
The article te^ connected wdth Petra^ points out a par- 
ticular thing as already known. The verse, therefore, 
should read thus, ''I say unto thee, thou art {Petros) a 
Stone, {kai) but (taute te Petra) upon this, the rock 
(pointing to himself) I will build my church. For why 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 29 

does Christ call Peter, Petros^ and yet say that upon 
this te Petra^ he will build his church? The article te 
designates the rock already known as Christ. In the 
old Testament we read of 'Hhe rock that begat thee,'' 
"the rock of ages," "the roci of my salvation,'' "the 
rock of my refuge," "my rock and my redeemer ^^^ and 
Paul tells us that the Israelites drank of that spiritual 
rock and that rock was Christ. This refers to Moses 
striking the rock^ spoken of in Numbers xx, 11, where in 
the septuagint the same word {Petran) is used. The 
Fathers in their translations of this text, are very far 
from making Christ say he would build his church upon 
Peter. 

Chrysostom on this text says, "Upon the faith of 
confession (viz. that Christ was the son of the living 
God) he said he would build his church," and he further 
says, ^'he said he built not upon Peter, for he did not 
build his church upon a man, but upon the faith of him- 
self.'** 

Abroset citing this text says, ' 'upon this rock, that is 
upon the confession of the Catholic faith, do I fix, settle 
or build believers unto salvation." 

Augustine on this text says, "Tu es ergo, inquit, Pe- 
trus, et super hanc petram quam confessus es, super hanc 
petram quam cognovisti dicens, tu es Christus, filius 
Dei vivi, sedijicabo te, non me super ^e."t That is, 
"therefore, says he, thou art Peter, and upon this rock, 
which thou has confessed, upon this rock, which thou 
hast recognized (or acknowledged) sayings — ^thou art 
Christ the Son of the living God, / will build tliee^ not 
me upon thee. " Again in his 124th Treatise on John, he 
says, "upon this rock which thou hast confessed, &c. 

* See Chrysostom in loco, 
fin ch. ii Eph. p. 1998. Ed. par. 1569. 
:^See Aug. in Matt. Serra. xiii. Tom. x. p. 51. Ed. Bag. 1569. 

D 



50 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE* 

TTie rock was Christ — ^upon which foundation even Pe- 
ter himself was built."* 

''If,'' says Origin, ''you think the whole church to be 
only built on Peter alone, what will you say of John the 
son of Thunder, and of each of the apostles ?t This Fa- 
ther is here certainly writing against the idea that the 
church is built on Peter more than on the rest of the 
apostles. 

Hierom says, ' 'Christ was the rock, and he bestowed 
on the apostles, that they should be called rocks,! and 
you say, (says he again) that the church is founded on 
Peter, but the same in another place is done upon all the 
apostles.§ 

When the question about imposing certain ceremo- 
nial observances upon the Gentiles came before the first 
council, the opinion of Peter was not asked; neither did 
the decree of the council run in Peter's words, but rather 
in those of James, who, indeed, seemed to be the most 
conspicuous and authoritative personage in the whole as- 
sembly. 

It appears that the apostles at Jerusalem had the au- 
thority to send Peter from place to place, where the good 
of the church seemed to require the presence of an apos- 
tle. "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusa- 
lem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, 
they SENT unto them Peter and John. || 

Have the cardinals at Rome, the authority to send 
the Pope where the prosperity of their church requires 
his presence? In this transaction where does the supre- 
macy of Peter appear? 

Another thing to be observed is, they were sent by the 
Apostles: now in one place our Saviour asks, "whether 

*See Aug. in loco. J Acts viii, 14. 

jOrig. in Matt. 16, p. 275. 
tHierom in Jovin, 1, 14. 

§Hierom in amos, 9, 12. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 31 

is greater he that sends^ or he that is sent?^^ The an- 
swer is an axiom. He that sends is greater than he that 
is sent. 

There is another consideration which carries with it 
an overpowering weight of probability against Peter be- 
ing the Pope of Rome. Peter is allowed on all hands 
to have suifered martyrdom during the persecution un- 
der Nero, A. D. QQ. Romanists admit this. The 
apostle John lived about 40 years beyond this period, 
naving, during his banishment to Patmos under Domi- 
tian, written his apocalypse. Now the question very 
naturally forces itself upon the mind, luliy did he not 
succeed Peter in the Popedom, instead of Linus, or 
Anacletus, or Clemens? (for the Romanists are not 
agreed as to who was his immediate successor) would 
not John have been the most suitable successor? Is it 
likely that an uninspired man would have been chosen 
the vicar of Christ in preference to an inspired man? in 
preference to his own beloved disciple? and that an in- 
spired apostle would thus become the suffragan of an 
uninspired bishop of Rome? ! John in his writings makes 
no mention of popes — though, according to Romanists, 
there were popes during his life. Surely he would have 
noticed so remarkable an event as the death of the first 
Pope of Rome and the appointment of his successor. In 
these days such an event produces quite a commotion 
in tlie church. One would suppose that John, who was 
an inspired man, would at least have been consulted as 
to the proper successor of Peter, and that he would 
have prescribed rules for the election and consecration 
of popes. But nothing of this kind appears in his wri- 
tings. But how does it come that the successors of Pe- 
ter, who were uninspired men, were permitted to occu- 
py the seat and exercise the functions of the See of 
Borne, while the inspired apostle John was not even per^^ 



32 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

mitted to step his foot in that city? How does it come 
that Rome would tolerate a Christian Bishopric, while 
she would scarcely tolerate the existence of an obscure 
follower of Christ within her walls? If Peter was put 
to death for being a christian— would his successor be 
permitted to exercise the office of a pope in the chris- 
tian church in the very midst of heathen? We call 
upon Romanists to clear up these difficulties. 

But, admitting that Peter was Bishop of Rome and 
that he was superior in office to the other^apostles, there 
is yet a difficulty. If it were a settled point in the 
church that the Bishop of RomeVas superior to all other 
Bishops, how does it come that there was much bitter 
contention for supremacy between the Bishops of Rome 
and Constantinople? how does it come that when the 
ambitious John, Bishop of Constantinople, laid claim to 
the title of Universal Bishop, (the title which the Pope 
now assumes) that Gregory the great. Bishop of Rome, 
in one of his Epistles, says, ''It is a most melancholy 
thing to hear with any patience, that our brother and 
companion in the Episcopal office should look down 
with contempt on all others, and be called sole Bishop. '^ 
In another place, writing to Eulogius, Bishop of Alex- 
andria, he says, ''None of my predecessors would ever 
use this profane word, for if one patriarch be called 
universal^ the name of patriarch is taken away from all 
the rest. But far be it from any christian heart to wish 
to arrogate to himself, any thing that would in the least 
degree diminish the honor of his brethren; to consent to 
thai execrable term is no other than to destroy the faith. " 
And again a little further on—- ''But I confidently as- 
sert that whosoever calls himself a Universal Bishop^ 
or desires to be so called, in such aggrandizement is the 
precurser of antichrist because he proudly sets up Mm- 
self above all others.'^^-^ 

^See ereg;. Magn. Epiat, lib, vi, Ep. 30. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 53 

. Would any man in his senses believe this to be the 
language of a Pope of Rome, such as now occupy the 
holy chair? does not Gregory explicitly declare that 
none of his predecessors were universal Bishops— -and 
does he not bitterly complain that any one should be as- 
piring to such high prerogative? and yet in the face of 
this, Romanists tell us that the Bishop of Rome has al- 
ways been a universal and supreme Bishop. If it was 
a settled point that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme 
Bishop, what meaning is there in the grant of that su- 
premacy by the Emperor Phocas, to the Bishop of 
Rome? What adds great force to the testimony of 
Gregory on this point, is, that he was writing the truth 
contrary to his own feelings and desires, for he would 
have been glad enough to make it appear that the Bish- 
op of Rome had always been a supreme Bishop, as we 
learn from the fact that he assumed it himself as soon 
as he had the chance; but not living to enjoy it, it de- 
scended to his successor, Boniface III, who was made 
Pope in 606, and in whom the supremacy of the Pope 
was established by Phocas. But Gregory does not hint 
at the supremacy of the Roman See; he does not com- 
plain that John of Constantinople was usurping rights 
and dignities which belonged to himself. But he speaks 
in strong and decided :erms against the claim to suprema- 
acy by any Bishop. Now is it likely that this would have 
been the strain of Gregory's complaint, ifhe had been the 
supreme Bishop himself ? would he not, if he had his 
senses, have endeavored to establish and defend his ex- 
clusive claim to supremacy? But instead of this he 
disclaims it for himself and all his predecessors not ex- 
cepting St. Peter himself. 

But admitting Peter's supremacy and that he was 
Bishop of Rome, there is yet another thing to be shown, 
and that is, that the Pope of Rome is the successor to 

D 2 



34 SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 

Peteiv Let this be demonstrated^^ and moreover, before 
this can be done, the Pope of Rome must become just 
such a Bishop as Peter was, for the office is the same, 
and he must therefore put himself on a footing with 
Peter; do the work which Peter did, going about from 
place to place, preaching Christ crucified, (for I doubt 
not such work is as much needed at Rome now as it was 
in the days of Peter) and let him not sit in a chair of 
splendour, ease and luxury, with a host of crouching 
minions to kiss his great toe, and pamper his fleshly 
lusts. Peter acted not so; neither had he any thing to 
do with ci^dl affairs, such as armies, revenues, crowns 
and thrones. 



CHAPTER II. 



EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. 



" Charity vauntetk not itself, is not puffed up, — seeketh not 
her own." Paul 

What will Papists deny next? They deny that it is a 
principle of their Church to withhold the scriptures 
from the common people. In the next chapter we shall 
show that this is a principle of the Romish Church, at 
present we shall confine ourselves to the denial that 
exclusive salvatix)n is a doctrine of that church. Papists 
would fain have us believe that they are very liberal 
and charitable in their sentiments towards Protestants, 
but it is all a sham. We should shudder at the idea 
that no Roman Catholics are saved, but in the language 
of another we must say that "they are saved not by the 
Romish religion, but in spite ofit.'^'' I indulge the hope, 
if ever I am permitted to enter Heaven, to meet there, 
clothed only in the righteousness of Christ, and justified 
by faith alone, the two late venerable Archbishops of 
Baltimore, in their rejoicing, ascribing their salvation 
only to the merits and intercession of Christ, the ima- 
gined intercessions of the Virgin Mary^ and of the 
Saints, will be forgotten. 

Exclusive Salvation, we are well aware, was not held 
by one of these Archbishops, (see Bishop Carroll's 
reply to Rev. Dr. Wharton, of N. J.) Whether or not 
this was held by the other, we are unable to say, but 
our present object is to notice a very confident asser- 
tion in a late number of the *' United States Catholic 
Miscellany," that the church of Rome, does not hold 
and never did hold, neither can any Romish writer be 
found who has said, that salvation was impossible out of 



36 EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. 

that Church. We do not profess to give the words, 
but the idea of the writer. Now let us test the truth of 
this assertion. The decree of Pope Boniface VIII., is 
that ''we declare, say, define and pronounce^— that it 
is altogether of necessity to salvation^ ikdit every creature 
be subject to the Roman Pontiff. " This is the decree 
as it now stands in the common extravagants,^ Inno- 
cent III. , who lived in the beginning of the thirteenth 
century, in his decretals, (lib. i. c. 33.) declares that 
every human creature ought to be subject to the Roman 
Pontiff, and that this subjection is absolutely necessarq 
to salvation. Pope Pius V. begins his Bull against 
Queen Elizabeth of England, with these words: ''He 
that reigneth on high, &c. hath committed the one Holy 
Catholic and Apostolical Church, out of which there is 
no salvation, to one alone on earth, namely, to Peter, 
Prince of the Apostles, and to the Roman Pontiffs suc- 
cessor of Peter, to be governed with a plenitude of 
power." (Cambd. Hist Anno. 1570.) Pope Pius II, 
in his bull of Retraction (though he seems not to have 
been of the same opinion while jEneas Sylvus) says, 
"He cannot be saved that does not hold to the unity of 
the Catholic faith^" and Pope Leo X., in his Lateran 
Council, and in his bull therein read and passed, says, 
"we do renew and approve the same Constitution, (viz. 
of Pope Boniface VIII., above mentioned,) the present 
sacred council also approving it;"t and Pope Pius IV., 
in his bull wherein he confirms the council of Trent, 
imposes an oath upon Ecclesiastical persons wherein 
they swear "that the Holy Catholic Church, and the 

* Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanse creaturse declara- 
mus, dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de ne- 
cessitate Salutis. Extrav. Com. Lib. i. Tit. 8. Cap. i. 

f Constitutionem ipsam sacro praesenti Concilio approbante, 
innovamus et approbamus. Concil. Lateran. Sess. ii. p. 153. 



EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. 37 

Apostolic Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of 
all Churches, and that this is the true Catholic faith^ 
without which no man can be saved.'^^ This bull, or as 
it is more commonly called, this creed of Pius IV., 
bears date, the ides of November, 1564, and concludes 
in the usual manner with threats of the indignation of 
God, and of his blessed apostles, St. Peter and St. 
Paul, against all that shall infringe or oppose it. This 
creed was drawn up by Pius lY., in pursuance of an 
order of the council of Trent, and bears this title: "A 
bull concerning a form of an oath of profession of Faith. " 
This creed is sometimes called the Trent Creed, and this 
"Oath^^^ as they call it, all Ecclesiastical persons are 
bound to take. 

Such a doctrine is unsuited to the enlightened 
charity of the present day, and it appears with a 
very ill grace in the creed of those who are continu- 
ally crying out, "persecution^^^ "want of liberality ^^^ 
"uncharitable.'^^ Romanists, with a dash of the pen, 
can send all Protestants to hell (for they will not allow 
them even the privilege of purgatory.) But if Protes- 
tants ;;resi/me to examine the tenets of the ' 'Infallible 
Church, '' they are accused of persecution and illiberality. 
But, how is this clause in the Trent Creed explained 
so as to give as little offence to Protestants as possible.^ 
In the ''U. States Catholic Miscellany. ''Vol. ix, p. 294. 
It is said, ''this clause implying exclusive salvation, is 
confined to the belief that the obstinate rejection of re- 
vealed truth, daily propounded is criminal." But by 
what church does the author mean, this truth is pro- 
pounded? By Protestant Churches? No, for Protes- 
tants do not reject it as propounded by them: propoun- 
ded by the Bible? No, for they do not reject that. But 
the Romish Church is meant; if Protestants reject truth 
a§ propounded by her, they are criminal* 



38 EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. 

But this does not clear up the difficulty. A little 
further on it is said, '^as therefore the (Roman) Catho- 
lic is convinced, that the (Roman) Church is the pillar 
and ground of the truth, he concludes the profession of 
the articles proposed to him, declaring his belief that 
without tliis Catholic faith, no one can obtain salvation. 
But he does not thereby consign to eternal misery, such 
as inculpably might be ignorant of some particular doc- 
trine." But what Protestant is regarded by them as 
inculpably ignorant of their doctrines.^ Are not all 
Protestants to blame^ who, when able, will not come to 
the Church and learn her tenets? Again, what is meant 
by saying, that they are notsenttoHell, whoareina^^fl- 
Wi/ ignorant? Is not here anartfulJesuiticaluseofwords 
to deceive the common reader? Is it not an insult to a 
man's sense, to tell him with all the gravity of an in- 
structor, that the man who is not hlameahle is not blam- 
ed^ tliat the man who is inculjmble is not culpable! Is 
this the way to explain an article of religious faith? 
The question which Romanists are called upon to an- 
swer is, are not the Protestants, who are either acquain- 
ted with, or are willingly ignorant of the Romish doc- 
trines, regarded as rejectors of that faith, without which, 
the creed of Pius IV, declares, ''no man can be saved?" 
Let this question be answered categorically; and if they 
are not ashamed of their doctrines, nor afraid to avow 
them; if they have unshaken confidence in their being 
able to stand the test of scriptural examination, let them 
by plainly stated. If therefore they do not believe that 
Protestants who know their doctrines, or are wilfully 
igiiorantof them and yet reject them, will not be saved^ 
let them say so in plain language. 



CHAPTER III. 

WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES BY THE ROMISH 
CHURCH. 

** The Bible burns the Devil and the Pope burns the Bible!'* 

Antidote to Popery . 

Having examined the Pope's claim to supremacy, 
and the doctrine of exclusive salvation, we come now 
to notice a practice of the Romish church which at 
once fixes on her the character of anti-chrisU namely, 
that of ivithJiolding the scriptures from thecom mon peo- 
ple. We shall hereafter examine the right of the Ro- 
mish church to withhold the^scriptures, and also the joro- 
jjriety of the practice; but at present our attention will 
be confined to the fact of prohibition.— -It has been de- 
nied by papists that this is a principle of their church, 
and they are now very solicitous to do away such an 
impression from the minds of the people. But while 
they thus profess (in direct opposition to the principles 
of their church, as we shall show) to be favorable to the 
general circulation of the scriptures-— they in fact prevent 
it all they can ; and indeed to be consistent with themselves 
they must prevent it, for the people are forbidden 
under a heavy penalty, as we shall hereafter show, to 
understand the scriptures differently from the church. 
But can this be prevented if the scriptures are to be put 
into the hands of every body, unless they surrender 
their reason, and judgment, and sense up to the priest? 
and if this surrender be made, is it not a farce to put 
the Bible into their hands.^ What object can they pos- 
sibly have in reading it, if they are not to use their rea- 
son and sense, which God has given them for the pur- 
pose, in endeavoring to understand it? You might as 
well give to the people the Latin vulgate at once. 



40 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

Prefixed to the spurious copy of the Doway Bible, I 
find a letter purporting to be from Pius the sixth to An- 
thony Martini, now archbishop of Florence, on his trans- 
lation of the Bible into Italian. Whether this letter be 
a forgery or not, I cannot say; but this I can say; that 
the following passage in it, is in direct opposition to an of 
der of the^council of Trent, ''for these (the Scriptures) are 
the most abundant sources which ought to he left open to 
EYERY ONE, to draw from them purity of morals and of 
doctrines to eradicate the errors which are so widely 
disseminated in these corrupt times: This you have rea- 
sonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sa- 
cred writings in the language of your country^ suitable 
to every one^s capacity, '^^ In the " admonition^^ imme- 
diately above this letter on the same page is the follow- 
ing sentence: ''To prevent and remedy this abuse^ (the 
unlearned wresting the scriptures to their perdition) and 
to guard against erivr^ it was judged necessary to forbid 
the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar languages^ 
witJiout the advice and permission of the pastors and 
Spiritual Guides whom God has appointed to govern his 
church." Here we see it is the Pope's opinion that the 
scriptures should be open to every one. But in the 
"admonition" which agrees with the council of Trent, 
as we shall presently see, it is said to be necessary to 
withhold them from some. This is a specimen of popish 
inconsistency. But the whole secret of the matter is 
this, Pojnsh priests are commanded to withhold the Bi- 
ble from some^ and they are privileged by the churcMto 
withhold it from all^ if they choose to consider them un- 
worthy, or in danger of being hurt by it; so that while 
they boast of and make a great noise about their right of 
permitting the scriptures to be read, they really prac- 
tice on the privilege of withholding them from all they 
Dossibly can. Therefore when a papist denies that his 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 41 

thurch forbids the reading of the scriptures, he is to be 
understood as saying, that the church does not absolutely 
and unconditionally forbid it, but she does forbid some, 
and she gives the priests power to grant permission to 
read to others. And who could ask a greater restric- 
tion to the privilege of reading the Bible than this? Is 
it not left to the option of every priest whether the Scrip- 
tures shall be read in his parish or not? Is it not taking 
away the right of reading them altogether from the peo- 
ple? Most assuredly it is, and this is our complaint 
The people's right, religious as well as civil, should ever 
be respected. This much we would say as patriots, but 
as christians we would say more; we would say, let 
manacles be put on their hands and feet; but give them 
the liberty of conscience; strip them of their clothing 
and deprive them of their shelter and extort from them 
their last, hard earned pittance; but give them the last 
will and testament of , their Lord and Master, in ^vhich 
is bequeathed to all who will accept of it, a rich inheri- 
tance in. the skies. Oh! keep not from them the written 
reprieve from that righteous Governor, by whose law^ 
they stand condemned. It is their legacy, and it is the 
charter of their dearest and most sacred rights. 

That what we have stated to be a principle of the Ro- 
mish Church, we sKall now endeavor to make appear 
from their own words. The decrees of the Council, es- 
pecially of that of Trent, every priest on his admission 
to Holy orders, binds himself to believe and defend. 
Now what says the infallible church on the subject be- 
fore us? The fourth rule of the index libr. prohibit, made 
in pursuance of the order of the Council of Trent and 
published by Pius IV., runs thus: '' Since it is manifest 
by experience, that if the Holy Bible be promiscuously 
permitted in the vulgar tongue, by reason of the rashness 
of men, more loss than profit will thence arise. In this 



4^ WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

matter let the judgment of the Bishop or Inquisition be 
stood to, that with the advice of the Parish priest ov 
confessor, they may grant the reading of the Bible in 
the vulgar tongue, translated by Catholic authors, to 
such as they shall understand, can receive no hurt by 
such reading, but increase of faith and piety ^ which fa- 
culty let them have in writing. But he that without 
such faculty shall presume to read, or to have the Bible, 
he may not receive absolution of his sins, except he first 
deliver up his Bible to the ordinary.'' Here we have 
the church's own words; we care not what a Romish 
priest may say on this subject. We have the words of 
the church, and we can judge of their meaning as well 
as he can, though he denies it, yet these very words of 
the church contradict him. 

Monsieur de Maire, Counsellor Almoner and Preach- 
er to the King of France, in a book published by author- 
ity, says: "this rule is founded in ecclesiastical right, 
and no man can transgress it, without contradicting that 
obedience which he owes to the church and the Holy 
See, from which it hath received its confirmation. For 
as much as this rule was not made but in prosecution of 
the decree of the council of Trent, &c. No man can 
deny but that it has been approved by the Holy See, and 
authorized by the bulls of Pius lY, and Clement VIII, 
who, after they had viewed and diligently examined it, 
published it to the world, with order that it should be 
obeyed. " ''If there be any thing," continues de Maire, 
'Hhat can hinder this rule from having the force of a law, 
it must be either, because it has not been published, or 
being published, has not been received; but neither the 
one nor the other can be said, since it is evident that this 
is the old quarrel we have with our heretics; this is that 
which our church has always been upbraided with by 
the enemies of the faith; tliis is that which is the subject 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 43 

of their most outrageous calumnies; this is that which 
has been acknowledged by all wise men; that which has 
been earnestly maintained by all the defenders of Cath- 
olic truth; that which no person is ignorant of; that which 
the whole world publishes; there being no point of belief 
more common, nor more general among the faithful, than 
this of the prohibition to read the Bible without permis- 
sion: and this belief (says he) so common, is a cer- 
tain proof, not only of the publication but of the 
reception of tliis rule."* This prohibition, then, to 
read the Bible without permission is in force now. It 
is an infallible decree and must forever be in force : 
who has repealed it.^ what council of equal authority has 
set it aside? The Spanish Expurgatory Index goes still 
farther. It prohibits the Bible in the vulgar tongue, not 
only printed, but in MSS. without any provision for 
permission. 

Alfonsus de Castrot says, that Ferdinand King of 
Spain, forbade any man under the heaviest penal- 
ties, to translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue, 
to. keep any Bible in his hands already translated; 
and the index of Pope Alexander VII, not only 
these Bibles that are translated and printed by 
heretics; but all Bibles in any vulgar tongue are pro- 
hibited. It would therefore be ridiculous to talk of a 
license in Spain, because the Bible itself is not there per- 
mitted in the vulgar tongue, and all that is permitted in 
other countries is, that a man may read theHolyScriptures 
in case he can get a license for it. The council of Trent, 
as we see above, declare that a vulgar translation of the 
Scriptures would occasion more harm than good. But 
what harm have the Scriptures ever caused.^ Let Ro- 
manists answer this question and substantiate their an- 

*Vide, Le Sanctuaire firme aux Profanes, part 2. c. 1, p. 335-6. 
f Advers. Hoeres. Liber. 1. c. 13, 



44 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

swer with facts. They say it breeds heresies: the scrip- 
tures do indeed breed heresy; but it is just as the Law 
of God breeds sin; by ferreting it out; dragging it from 
its secret dens; exposing it to the world; and charging 
it home with powerful conviction on the consciences of 
men. When the Law came, says Paul, sin revived 
and I died. .When the scriptures come, say the Roman- 
ists, popish superstitions and abominations come to light, 
and the beast must die. Irseneus says, ''ignorance of 
the word of God is the cause of all these heresies." 

Romanists boldly deny that their church withholds 
the scriptures : but they say she expressly permits them 
to be read. But to whom is this permission granted.^ is 
it to all men indifferently.^ Is it granted to all who ask 
it? No; but to those only who they know can receive 
no hurt from them; that is, those who are not in danger 
of prefering their own sense before that which they re- 
ceive from the priests and the church. And is it pro- 
bable that such would ever ask permission? For why 
should they desire to read the scriptures, who have al- 
ready determined right or wrong, to believe just as the 
priests bid them? And if others ask it, they will be im- 
mediately suspected to be of the number of those who 
are in the greatest danger of receiving hurt from the 
scriptures: so that the great noise that is made about 
permission, to read them is all a sham; since those who 
would be most likely to obtain permission, are the least 
likely to ask it: and those who most desire it, least like- 
ly to obtain it. 

At the reformation, it was found impossible to keep 
the Bible out of the hands of the common people: and 
their refusing absolution of sins to those who refused to 
deliver up their Bibles to the ordinary, was a device of 
the clergy to get the Bible again into their hands. This 
is plain from the addition to the fourth rule of the Trent 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 45 

Expurgatory index, made by Clement VIII, when a 
new edition was published, viz. ''That by this impres- 
sion or edition, no new faculty is given to Bishops, or 
Inquisitors, or any superiors of Regulars to grant a li- 
cence of buying, reading or retaining the Bible in the 
vulgar tongue; since hitherto by the command and us- 
age of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, that 
faculty of granting such licences of reading or retaining 
the vulgar Bibles or any parts of the Holy Scriptures, 
as well of the New as the Old Testament, in any vulgar 
tongue has been taken from them: which, says Clement, 
is to be inviolably observed." If then this power, for- 
merly given, of granting licences, be taken away, and 
no new power of granting them be given; it necessarily 
follows, that there is now no such thing as the power of 
granting permission to read the Bible; or had there been 
such power before this new edition of the rule, yet it 
was then taken away by the Pope in decreeing that the 
command and usage of the Holy Inquisition was to be 
inviolably observed. And lest some should have pre- 
sumption to read the Bible notwithstanding the penalty, 
the booksellers who shall dispose of them to such, be- 
sides the loss of the price of the books, are liable to be 
punished at the Bishop^ s pleasure. 

Having now seen the rule of the Council of Trent on 
this subject, and the Pope's addition to it. Let us look 
at the language of a Romish work of high authority, and 
see if it does not coincide (as indeed it should) with the 
infallible dictum of the council. 

The Rhemish Translators of the New Testament say 
in their preface, that their church has ''neither of old, 
nor of late, wholly condemned all vulgar versions of 
scripture, nor have at any time generally forbidden the 
faithful to read the same; yet they have not by public 
authority, prescribed, commanded, or authentically ever 

e2 



46 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES^ 

recommended any such (i. e. vulgar) interpretation to 
be indifferently used of all rnm." What do these wri- 
ters mean by saying their church has not generally for- 
bidden the faithful to read the scriptures ? They must mean 
either that the church has not forbidden it at all times ^ or 
thatshehas not forbidden wZ/joer^ons, but either way it con- 
demns them, for the Bible should be read at all times and 
by all persons. Besides, their never having commanded or 
even recommended a vulgar translation to be read by the 
people, is the neglect of a manifest duty, if it be the peo- 
ple's privilege to read the Bible. It looks very much like 
keeping the sacred volume out of the hands of the people. 
Little further on, the translators say ''which causeththe 
Holy church, not to forbid utterly any catholic transla- 
tion, though she allow not the publishing or reading of 
any, absolutely and without exception or limitation." 
The expression "iitterly^^ here, is explained by the pow- 
er of granting licences to read, which we have consider- 
ed. A little further on they say, ''and therefore nei- 
ther generally permittetli that which must needs do hurt 
to tlie unworthy, nor absolutely condemneth that which 
MAY do much good to the worthy. " Here we see what 
they mean by "generally forbidding, '^^ It is that they 
do not absolutely forbid it, but will in some cases per- 
mit it. 

The translators then go on to give the substance of 
the order of the Council of Trent, which we have noti- 
ced above, they highly approve of it, and say it is what 
"many a ivise man wished for before." They then go 
on to say that the governors of the church guided by 
God's spirit, and experiencing the maladies of this time 
(soon after the reformation) have taken more exact or- 
der both for the readers and translators of these latter 
ages than of old^ yet, say they, "we must not imagine 
that the translated Bibles in the vulgar tongues were in 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 47 

the hands of every husbandman, artificer^ prentice^ boys, 
girls, mistresses, maid, man, &c. no, in those better 
times men were neither so z7/, nor so curious of them- 
selves so to abuse the blessed book of Christ." Here, 
then, we see it is considered by Papists an abuse 
of the bible for farmers, mechanics, children and servants 
to read it. They are not fit to read it, and they have 
no business with it! What shall we say to this? It is 
plain language, but it is their own: farmers ! mechanics ! 
will you submit to it? Will you give up your senses, 
your bibles, your souls and your children's souls, to po- 
pish Priests? Will you calmly and without a murmur 
of disapprobation, witness the spread of sentiments like 
these? What if Papists endeavour to deceive you by de- 
nying these to be the principles and sentiments of their 
church? Have you not the decree of their infallible 
council? Have you not the orders and bulls of their 
Popes, and have you not the language of their writers? 
And are you not able to judge for yourselves? Can you 
not understand commands and prohibitions, when 
clothed in plain language, as well as artful Priests? 
Need you be told that the principles of their church ne- 
ver change? Need you be told that it is the policy of 
Papists to disown those principles when they are unpopu- 
lar, unsuited to the feelings, and opposed to the better 
knowledge of a free people? 

" The wise," continue the translators, '^ will not here 
regard what some wilful people do mutter, that the 
scriptures are made for all men^ and that it is envy that 
the priests do keep the holy book from them, which sug- 
gestion Cometh of the same serpent that seduced our 
first parents," &c. Here is a candid confession that 
the scriptures are not made for all men: and that the 
Priests do keep the holy book /row the people^ and that 



48 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

the idea of its being wrong, is from the Devil! What 
will Papists say to this? They then say that their 
church '^forbiddeth not the reading of them (the scrip- 
tures) in any language * * ** but giveth order how to do 
it without casting the holy to dogs, or pearls to hogs, 
(Chrysostom declaring these dogs and hogs to be carnal 
men and heretics.) '^**'^ She would have the presump- 
tuous heretic, notwithstanding he alledge them never so 
fast, flying as it were through the whole Bible and 
quoting the Psalms, Prophets, Gospels, Epistles, never 
so readily to his purpose (a great compliment, by the 
way, to Protestant knowledge of the Scriptures) yet she 
would, according to TertuUian's rule, have such mere 
usurpers quite discharged of all our occupying and pos- 
session of the Holy Testament, which is her old and 
only right and inheritance, and belongeth not to here- 
tics (Protestants) at all. " This is enough for the strong- 
est stomach: But there is more still. They say that 
Chrysostom does not (as some perversely gather of his 
words) make it a thing absolutely needful for every poor 
artisan to read or study the scriptures: and they say 
that the Fathers were far from approving of 'Hhe exces- 
sive pride and madness of these days (soon after the 
reformation. Oh! these were troublesome times for 
the enemies to Bible reading) when every man and 
woman is become not only a reader (dear me ! that is 
bad enough) but a teacher^ controller, and judge of 
doctors, church, scriptures and all!" Surely it is a 
dreadful thing for every man and woman ' 'to search the 
Scriptures," and to appeal 'Ho the law and to the testi- 
mony" for the confirmation or rejection of doctrines; 
and to require, a "thus saith the scriptures" for all that 
is proposed to them for their belief. I know indeed 
that this touch-stone, like the Magician's wand, would 
cause many a Popish dogma to vanish, and this is the 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 49 

very reason why Papists are so much opposed to the 
circulation and general reading of the scriptures. 

There is one other passage in this preface which we 
cannot forbear inserting here. It expresses the senti- 
ments of the Council of Trent that the general reading 
of the scriptures does more harm than good. The trans- 
lators boastingly say, ''Look, whether your men be 
more virtuous, your women more chaste, your children 
more obedient, your servants more trusty, your maids 
more modest, your friends more faithful, your laity 
more just in dealing, your clergy more devout in pray- 
ing: whether there be more religion, fear of God, faith 
and conscience in all states now, (since the reformation, 
when the scriptures are more read) than of old when 
there was not so much readings chatting^ and jangling 
of God's word. " Can it be possible that the reading of 
God's word makes men less virtuous, women less chaste, 
children less obedient, &c. &c. ? Is this the doctrine of 
a christian church? If it be a true doctrine, then in- 
deed, the Romish church is right in forbidding the read- 
ing of the scriptures. Here, then, we see the infallible 
council of Trent, and the learned Rhemish doctors de- 
claring it as their deliberate opinions that the general 
reading of the scriptures is productive of more evil than 
good; and yet Papists will declare it is a doctrine of 
the church that they should be generally read; and they 
profess their willingness (but it is mere profession) to 
have them generally read. What! will they counte- 
nance and encourage that which is infallibly declared to 
be productive of more harm than good.^ But let us see 
in what manner they evade the charge of prohibiting the 
general reading of the scriptures, for the very manner 
of evading it, is an acknowledgment of the principle 
we charge upon them^ 



CHAPTER IV. 

WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES FROM THE PEOPLE 
CONTINUED. 

"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a 
hammer that breakeththe rock in pieces? 

Therefore, behold, 1 am against the Prophets, saith the Lord, 
that steal my words every one from his neighbour. 

Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use 
their tongues, and say. He saith. 

Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith 
the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their 
lies, and by their lightness." Jer. xxiii. 29 — 32. 

Romanists deny that it is a principle of their church 
to withhold the scriptures from the common people. 
They say that she expressly permits them to be read. 
We have already seen what is the order of the council 
of Trent as to this point; and we leave every intelligent 
mind to the proper construction upon it. We grant 
that the church of Rome permits the reading of the 
scriptures; but it is only to those who are so firmly 
grounded in the Romish faith as to be in no danger of 
having their confidence in her dogmas at all shaken. 
But out of their own mouths we will condemn them. 
The church of Rome permits the Bible to be read ! pray, 
what does permitting imply, but the power of forbidding? 
Who is this that undertakes to permit God to speak to 
his creatures! God beheld our race in ruin: he pitied 
us in our fallen state, and in great mercy made provi- 
sion for our restoration to his favour and to happiness; 
he sends to us the tidings of this great salvation; he re- 
veals to us the terms of reconciliation. It is a matter of 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 51 

eternal life and of eternal death. Hell yawns to receive us ; 
Christ has died to redeem us^ we must believe or perish. 
The offended king speaks pardon and peace; the ma- 
jesty of Heaven commands, ''give ear O earth," ''give 
ear all ye inhabitants of the world," and who is this 
that steps forward and gives permission to the "earth" 
and "all the inhabitants of the world" to hear what the 
mighty God would say! Jehovah commands ''give ear O 
my people," but who is this that interferes and gives 
permission to the Almighty, the Omniscient God, to 
speak to his creatures? who permits Him to speak to 
those only who are in no danger of being injured or led 
astray by his communications? Impious presumption! 
High-handed rebellion against the sovereign of the Uni- 
vei'se ! 

Will Papists deny that their church claims the privi- 
lege of penrnV^mg* the common people to read the Bible? 
Will they deny that she claims the right to forbid their 
reading it? This is what we charge upon them; and if 
this be not a principle of their church, I call upon them 
to say what is a principle of their church? What consti- 
tutes a principle, if infallible decrees do not? If they 
deny that their church claims any such privilege or any 
such right, let them explain the import of the order of 
the council of Trent; of the 4tli rule of the Expurgatory 
Index, and of the addition by Clement; and let them 
explain the bull of Pope Pius VII., issued in 1816, en- 
forcing the order of the council of Trent, prohibiting 
the Bible to be read by all. This principle of the Ro- 
mish church has been well compared to a case where a 
sovereign, some of whose subjects are in a state of re- 
bellion, issues a proclamation of a pardon on condition 
of submitting and returning to him. And the magis- 
trates of the riotous town assemble to consult as to the 



52 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

propriety of publishing that proclamation to the rebel 
citizens. Now does not every one see that even if they 
agreed to publish it, their act of consultation and formal 
agreement to publish the proclamation, would be putting 
their authority on an equal footing with that of the So- 
vereign! Who does not see that such conduct would be 
presumption and rebellion? 

If the church of Rome does not prohibit the promis- 
cuous reading of the Bible, how does it come that so 
many of their writers have so formally and so. gravely 
defended the propriety of such a prohibition? Is it not 
a notorious fact that the controversy with the most of 
Romish writers on this subject, has not been about the 
fact of prohibition, but about ^o^ propriety of it? 

If the church of Rome has so much regard to the peo- 
ple's right to read the scriptures, how does it come that 
there was no vulgar translation in use when Wickliffe 
arose ! and why did his translation excite such great 
commotion in the church, and bring down upon him the 
vengeance of Popes and Councils? 

'^Wickliff's translation alone,*' says Milner, '^suffi- 
ced to render his name immortal. The value of it was 
unspeakable; and his unwearied pains to propagate the 
genuine doctrines of revelation among mankind, indi- 
cated the steady zeal with which he was endowed; 
while the rage with which the hierarchy was inflamed 
against a work so undeniably seasonable^ demonstrated 
that the ecclesiastical rulers hated the light, and would not 
come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved.* 

*Milner'sCh. Hist. iv. 91. 

Note. — Wicliffe, in his prologue to the translation, informs us 
of the melhod in which he proceeded, notwithstanding^ the op- 
position he met with, and the clamors that were raised against 
him on the account. 1. He with several who assisted him, got 
together all the Latin Bibles they could, which they diligently 



WITHHOLDING TH£ SCRIPTURES. 53 

When Sixtus V. , who was a whimsical Pope,* published 
an Italian version of the scriptures in 1589, it produced a 
great excitement in Romish Christendom, some of the car- 
dinals expostulated with him very freely on the subject, 
and said it was scandalous as well as dangerous, and bor- 
dered very nearly on heresy! But Papists say they have 
translations of the scriptures: there is the Doway Bible 
and the Rhemish translation. Inasmuch as both these 
translations contain the fundamentals of the gospel plan 
of salvation, if they were stripped of their cumbersome • 
load of notes, we should be glad to see them in gene- 
ral circulation rather than none at all: but as to the 
Doway Bible, it is a well known fact that papists will 
not sell a protestant a genuine edition, if they can help 
it, and the common edition, sold in our cities, is a spu- 
rious edition: and as to the Rhemish translation, its 
quantity of notes renders its general circulation alto- 

* See his life, 8vo. p. 562, 
collated and corrected, in order that they might ha\e one Latin 
Bible near the truth. In the next place, they collected the or- 
dinary comments, with which they studied the text so as to 
make themselves masters of its sense and meaning. Lastly, they 
consulted the old grammarians and ancient divines, respecting 
the hard words and sentences. After ^.11 this was done, Wick- 
liff then set about the translation, which he resolved, should wo^ 
be a literal one, but so as to express the meaning as clearly as 
he could. Mllner's Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 398. 

A specimen of Wickliff's New Testament, in the old English 
of his time, may be pleasing to the reader. 

John X. 26 — 30. **Ye beleven not, for ye ben not of my 
scheep. My scheep heren my vois, and I knowe hem, and 
thei suen me. And I gyve to hem everlastynge life, & thei 
schulen not perische, withouten end; & noon schal rauysche 
hem fro myn hond. That thing that my Fadir gaf to me, is 
more than alle thingis; & no man may rauysche from my Fadirs 
hond. I & the Fadir ben oon." 



54 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

gether impracticable. The papists object to the circu- 
lation of our translation professedly because it is an 
heretical translation: but let any one take the pains to 
visit the Romish communion, especially the poor, to 
whom there are express injunctions to us to preach the 
gospelj and see how many copies, even of the Romish 
translation of the scriptures, he would find among them. 
Is it a fact that papists do circulate even their own 
translations among the people? No: their objection to 
the circulation of the scriptures is too obvious to be con- 
cealed. But lest it should seem we were too harsh, we 
will give their opinion of the necessity of such a circu- 
lation in their own words. 

The Rhemish translators in their preface say, (speak- 
ing of their own work,) '^ which translation we do not, 
for all that, publish upon erroneous opinions of necessity 
that the holy scriptures should always be in our mother 
tongue: or that they ought or were ordained of God to 
be read^indifFerently of all, or could be easily under- 
stood of every one that readeth or heareth them in a 
known language: pernicious and much hurtful to many: 
or that we generally and absolutely deem.it more con- 
venient in itself and more agreeable to God^s word and 
honour: or edification of the faithful to have them turned 
into vulgar tongues^ than to be kept and studied only in 
the ecclesiastical learned languages: not for these nor 
for any such like causes, do we translate this sacred 
book, but upon special consideration of the present 
time, state and condition of our country, unto which 
divers things are either necessary or profitable and 
medicinable now, that otherwise in the peace of the 
church, were neither more requisite, nor perchance 
wholly tolerable.'' (See preface to the Rhemish trans- 
lation of the N. T. 2d paragraph.) Let not papist^ 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 55 

boast of this translation being made for the people; for 
we here see in their own words, the reason of it. It 
was not because such a translation was necessary, not 
because the scriptures should be read by all, nor because 
God commands them to be read by all, {"search the 
scriptures^'') not because they were necessary to edifi- 
cation, or even agreeable to the word and honour of God; 
but because in these times, (soon after the reformation) 
the people seem anxious and determined to have them, 
and if we do not give them a translation, some one else 
will, and if we do not guard our translation with notes 
and comments, to prevent their speaking differently 
from what the church teaches, they will get one without 
such interpreters; so that we are now driven in self-de- 
fence to let the people take a peep into the last will and 
testament of their Lord and Master. Before the refor- 
mation, when the church was in peace, it was not re- 
quisite or even tolerable to have the Bible in the vulgar 
tongue, lest it should be read by all who pleased; but 
now it seems necessary, for they will have it, and we 
must submit. The people are beginning to have too 
much light; they are beginning to understand their 
rights. It is a lamentable thing. But alas ! alas ! ! 

^Papists may still boast that they permit the common 
people to read the scriptures, but I ask upon what con- 
dition are they permitted to read them? This is the con- 
dition, viz: that they will not understand them to teach 
a different doctrine from that w^iich they have heard 
from the church! Here is the proof contained in the 
following extract from the decree of the infallible Coun- 
cil of Trent, concerning the edition and use of the 
sacred books. ''Besides, for restraining petulent wits, 
it decrees that no man leaning to his own understanding 
in matters of faith and morals, pertaining to the edifica- 



56 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES- 

tion of Christian doctrine, twisting the holy scriptures 
to their own sense, dare to interpret the holy scriptures 
contrary to the sense, that the holy mother church (to 
whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the holy 
scriptures) hath holden or does hold; or even contrary 
to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, though these 
interpretations be never intended to be published. 
Those who contravene this statute shall be reported by 
the ordinary, and punished by the pains ordained by the 
law." 

Here then we see the condition on which the people 
are permitted to read the scriptures; they are to give up 
their own sense and judgment in return for this permis- 
sion; they are to forego all the advantage that could 
possibly accrue from a reading of the scriptures, by way 
of an equivalent for the privilege of reading them. To 
what purpose does a man read the scriptures, who has 
determined before hand not to understand them differ- 
ently from the church ! To what purpose does a man 
appeal to the law and to the testimony, who has pledged 
himself before hand to believe that all the testimony is 
in favour of a particular church? Is not this trifling 
with the word of God? Is it not measuring the scriptures 
by the church, rather than judging of the church by the 
scriptures? Most assuredly it is; and this is not denied, 
but taught explicitly by the Rhemish translators. 

But in order to exhibit as clearly as possible the con- 
trast between the text and the comment, I shall put 
them in separate columns. In their comment upon 
Acts xvii. 11, they say— 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 



57 



^'These were more noble 
than those in Thessalonica, 
in that they received the 
word will all readiness of 
mind, ajid searched the 
scriptures daily^ whether 
those things were so." 
Acts xvii. 11. 



*'The heretics use this 
place to prove that the 
hearers must try and judge 
by the scriptures, whether 
their teachers and preach- 
ers' doctrine be true, and 
so reject what they find not 
in the scriptures: as though 
here the sheep were made 
judges of their pastors: the 
people of their priests and 
men, and women of all sorts 
even of St. Paul's doctrine 
itself; which were the most 
foolish doctrine in the 
world. " 

Now can papists consistently use such language as 
this, and at the same time circulate the scriptures.^ Of 
what use are they, if we are not allowed the use of our 
sense and reason in understanding them.^ Suppose an 
honest reader of the Bible should understand it differ- 
ently from the Romish church; suppose he should not 
understand Christ as saying that the bread which he 
held in his hand at the supper with his disciples, and 
which he called breads after he had blessed it, was his 
real body, blood, soul and divinity; suppose he should 
not understand the Bible as saying that Christ eat up 
his own body, and that each of his disciples also eat up 
his whole body, and yti he remained with them entirely 
whole, talking and eating himself with them all the 
time, and the next morning died on the cross: suppose 
he should not understand the Bible as teaching this, 
what is to be done with him? why, unless he disbelieves his 
own senses, takes leave of his wits, and believes that which 
he sees to be an absurdity, he must be ''reported by the 
ordinary, and be punished by the pains ordained by the 
law" for daring to understand the scriptures differently 

F 3 



58 WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

from the church! Is not this virtually withholding the 
scriptures from the people? For if the book is not with- 
held, their senses are, and of what use is the one with- 
out the other? So that the whole parade of papists about 
permitting the scriptures amounts to this; if you will 
retain your senses, you shall not have the Bible, and if 
you will have the Bible, you shall not have your senses; 
therefore take your choice. This dilemma is a real one: 
it is founded on the decree of the Council of Trent, and 
recognized by the Rhemish translators. 

So fearful are papists, notwithstanding this decree, 
that the people Vvill exercise their private judgment in 
the interpretation of scripture, that they have resorted 
to the last remaining expedient to prevent it, by influ- 
encing the judgment with such numerous and extensive 
notes accompanying the text If papists do circulate 
the scriptures at all, it is never without their notes, as 
if they could not trust the Bible to speak for itself; but 
lest God in his communications to his people should err, 
they stand by to correct him. But V/hy will not the 
Romish Church, permit (for they have assumed the pre- 
rogative o[ permitting to themselves,) God to speak to 
his creatures without their officious interference? Is it 
difficult to assign the reason? Is there not some danger 
that he would speak decidedly against them! The fol- 
lowing has been stated as an analagous case. Suppose 
a court of justice would not allow a witness to give in 
his testimony in his own words, but should cause it to 
pass through the prisoner or his council. Let it receive 
all their polish and gloss before it reached the jury, and 
what would be the consequence? Would the naked 
tiuth appear? would strict impartial justice be adminis- 
tered? Then why put the gloss of popery on the word 
of God before it can be trusted to speak to the people! 

Now from all that has been said, can the candid mind 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 59 

get away from the conclusion, that let papists deny what 
they will, it is clearly a principle of the Romish church, 
to withhold the scriptures from the common people ! 
The people feel that their rights are invaded; they feel 
that they are treated with shameful neglect; their souls 
are as precious as the Pope's, and it requires the same 
price to redeem, and the same cleansing blood to purify 
the one as the other: they have an equal right to all 
the means of grace: and the Bible is their treasure as 
much as that of the church: it is to be a lamp to their 
feet and a light to their path, as much as to those of the 
Councils. And to throw the odium off themselves which 
in this enlightened and enquiring age, they feel to be 
great, papists positively deliy the point, we have been 
endeavouring to establish; but it is in vain; the records 
and decrees of the church speak for themselves: and 
suppose papists do not now actually adhere to what we 
have clearly shown to be the authorized practice of the 
church, what does it prove? Why, that they are perjured 
men! They bind themselves by a solemn oath to ap- 
prove and carry into effect all the decrees of Councils, 
especially of the Council of Trent : and where, let me 
add, is their infallibility? that clinching power, that 
fastens upon modern Romanism all the abominations and 
superstitions of the darkest ages; and forever binds that 
church to the practice of sanctioned rites, however cruel 
and arbitrary, and however opposed to the light and 
genius of the present day, and revolting to the spirit of 
enlightened Christianity, and to the enlarged and liberal 
feelings of the nineteenth century in America ! 



CHAPTER V. 

THE PROPRIETY OF WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 

** The different parts of Luther's German translation of the 
Holy Scriptures, being successively and gradually spread abroad 
among" the people, produced sudden and almost incredible ef- 
fects, and extirpated, root and branch, the erroneous principles 
and superstitious doctrines of the Church of Rome, from the 
minds of a prodigious number of persons." 

Mosheim's EccL Hist, vol iv. /). 60. 

It has now, I think, been clearly shown, to be a prin- 
ciple of the Romish church to prohibit the general read- 
ing of the scriptures by the common people. And if it 
be asked whether this principle be really acted upon by 
the Romish priests in tliis country, we have two answers: 
The one is, that if it be not really acted upon, we call 
upon papists to reconcile their practice with their prin- 
ciples : we call upon them to show how their disregard 
of an express prohibitory decree, and of the almost 
unanimous opinion of Romish writers, since that decree, 
concurring with it, comports with the claim to infalli- 
bility, and to unity of sentiment and practice : The 
other answer is, that if any one will take the pains to 
visit the Romish communion, even in this country, or 
listen to the reiterated statements of agents engaged 
in the distribution of the Bible, he will be convinced 
of the mournful fact that the principle of prohibition 
is acted upon as strictly as possible. 

Considering it, therefore, as manifest that the genera\ 
reading of the Bible is prohibited, we shall now proceed 
to examine the propriety of such a prohibition. And 
indeed until lately this was the only controversy on this 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 61 

point between papists and protestants ; for until lately 
but a very few papists ever denied it, and they delnied 
it only in an equivocal and evasive manner. For who 
ever will look into the controversy on this subject, will 
find that it is almost wholly about the propriety , and not 
the fact of prohibition. And this simple fact speaks a 
volume of proof that such is the principle of the Romish 
church. 

In the first place then— -the Holy Scriptures were ori- 
ginally written in the vulgar language of the people. 
That the books of Moses and the Prophets were written 
in the common language of the Jews is generally granted 
by Romanists.* 

As to the New Testament the only question is con- 
cerning the gospel of Matthew and the epistle to the 
Hebrews: and there can be but little doubt that they wxre 
both written in Greek, which was then the vulgar tongue 
in almost every nation. Some have objected that the 
Latin was the tongue of the Romans, and yet Paul wrote 
his epistle in Greek: but it is well known that the Greek 
language was more generally known than the Latin, 
even at Rome, at this time, especially by strangers and 
Jews, to whom Paul had a special regard in his epistle, t 
Both men and women at Rome understood Greek at this 
time, and as Arnaud (above quoted) says, they even taught 
it to their parrots.! If Matthew's gospel was written in 
Hebrew at first, Hebrew must have been the vulgar 
tongue of the Jews at Jerusalem, for whose sake that 
gospel was principally written. At all events it is evi- 
dent that by Hebrew, those ancient writers, to state the 
fact, meant the vulgar tongue of the Jews during the 

* See Arnaud, (a Romanist,) de la lect. de I'ecrit. saint, lib. 1. 
c. 4. p. 55. 

f See Grotius Annot. in Evan. Matt, and Eps. ad Heb. 
^De la lect. &c. lib. 2. c. 13. 



6£ THE PROPRIETY OF 

time of the Apostles ; for in the gospel itself it is fre- 
quently said that a thing was so called in Hebrew^ when 
it is evident that it was so called in Syriac. For exam- 
ple ''He went forth into a place called the place of a 
skull, which is called in the Hebrew GoZgo/Act." Now 
the fact is, Golgotha is not a Hebrew but a Syriac word ; 
by Hebrew then, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, &c. who 
s.tate that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, manifestly mean 
that language which was common with the Jews. This 
is strongly asserted by Bellarmine, whose authority a 
papist should not deny.* The same is stated by Estius 
whose authority with papists is equal with Bellarmine*s.t 
Eusebius expressly asserts that Matthew wrote his gos- 
pel in the language of his country. J And as both Greek 
and Syriac were languages generally understood by the 
Jews, it matters not, so far as our argument is concern- 
ed, in which the epistle to the Hebrews was written. It 
is evident however that when the Fathers say it was 
written in Hebrew, they mean the vernacular tongue of 
Jerusalem at that time. The probability however is that 
it was written in Greek. || It is evident therefore that 
the scriptures were originally written in the vulgar lan- 
guage of the people. 

The scriptures were directed to the people generally, 
and not to particular individuals. In Hos. viii. 12, it 
is said, ''I have written to him the great things of my 
law^" and the verse preceding tells us to whom it was 
written, viz: to Ephraim, who is there put for the whole 
body of the Israelites. The first epistle of Paul to the 
Corinthians is directed to all that in every place call 
upon the name of the Lord Jesus. The second, to the 

*See Bell, de verbo Dei, lib. 2. c. 4. 

f See Estius Proleg. in Comment, in Epist. ad Heb. 

4:See Eusebius History Eccl. lib. 3. 

IjSee Professor Stuart's Com. on the Heb. yol. 1. p. 278. §39, 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 



63 



church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints 
which are in all Achaia. The epistle to the Philippians 
is directed to all the saints at Philippi, together with 
the bishops and deacons. Will any man presume to 
say that this epistle was written merely to the bishops 
and deacons? If the epistles were written to the bishops 
only, why were they not all addressed to them as were 
those to Timothy and Titus? Paul commands the Co- 
lossians to read his epistle also to the church of the La- 
odicians/^ and he gives a solemn charge that his epistle 
to the Thessalonians should be read to all the holy 
brethrent Who will say in the face of all this, that the 
common people ought not to read the scriptures without 
asking permission of a Romish priest? But not only is it 
the privilege^ but it is the duty of all to read the scrip- 
tures. 



In Deut. vi. ch. 6, 7, 8, 
9, it is thus written. ''And 
these words which I com- 
mand thee this day, shall 
be in thine heart, and thou 
shalt teach them diligently 
unto thy children^ and shalt 
talk of them when thou 
sittest in thine hoiise^ and 
when thou icalkest by the 
icay^ and when thou liest 
doicm^ and when thou risest 
up, and thou shalt bind 
them for a sign upon thine 
hand^ and they shall be as 
frontlets between thine eyes^ 
and thou shalt write them 



Contrast with this the 
opinion of the Rhemish 
translators^ in their pre- 
face, they say '•our fore- 
fathers never suffered the 
Bible to be in the hands of 
husbandmen, mechanics, 
&c. not to be sung and 
played and alledged of 
every tinker, tanner, rimer, 
minstrel, nor to-be for table 
talk^ for ale benches^ for 
boats and barges.^ &c. No 
in those better times, men 
were neither so ill nor so 
curious of themselves, so 
to abuse the blessed book 
of Christ.*' 



upon the posts of thy house 
and on thy gates." 

Let every intelligent reader draw his own inference 
from this contrast. Turn also to Deut. xxxii. ch. 45, 
* Col. iv. 16. fl Thess. v. 27. 



64 THE PROPRIETY OF 

46, 47, and see if in any of these passages Moses talks 
like a man who would not have the people so much as 
even read the words he had spoken to them. 

. In the New Testament, Christians are exhorted to 
let the words of Christ dwell in them richly and in all 
wisdom. We are commanded to search the scriptures. 
Timothy from a child had known the Holy Scriptures. 
It is required that the commandment be made known to 
all nations for the obedience of faith. And in looking 
over our Saviour's discourses as recorded by the Evan- 
gelists, we find a constant reference to scripture in this 
form, ''ye have read" so and so, ''have ye not read?" 
and the like.* After reading these passages, can any 
one believe that the scriptures were not read by the 
people! Josephus, the learned Jewish historian, speak- 
ing of the ignorance of some people of their laws, says, 
^'but for our people, if any body do but ask any one of 
them about our laws, he will more readily tell them allj 
than he will tell his own name^ and this in consequence 
of our having learned them immediately as soon as ever 
we became sensible of any thing, and of our having 
them as it were engraven on our souls, "t In Acts 
xvii. 11, we are told that the Bereans were more noble 
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the 
word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scrip- 
tures daily ^ whether those things were so. Here we see 
that the Bereans not only received the word from the 
Apostles as they preached it, but they searched the 
scriptures for themselves; and for what? to yield an 
implicit and blind belief in what was taught them? No, 
but to see whether or not, it was according to scripture. 
The great force and excellency of the apostle's preach- 

♦ See Luke iv. 16. Matt. xix. 3, 4. xxi, 16, 42. xii. 5. xxii. 3K 
xxiv. 15. Luke vi. 3, &c. 

t See Josep. Contr. Apion. lib. ii. §19. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 65 

ing was, that it condemned the Jews out of their own 
scriptures. He referred them constantly to the law and 
to the testimony, and thus showed from their own scrip- 
tures that Jesus was the Christ. The comment of the 
Rhemish translators on this passage is strangely absurd, 
as we have before seen; they say that this text is used 
by heretics (Protestants) to prove that the hearers must 
try and judge by the scriptures, whether their teachers 
and preachers doctrine be true, which they think were 
the most foolish doctrine in the world. They contend 
that the people did not* read the scriptures to dispute 
with the Apostles ,and to try and judge of his doctrine. 
Now if this be not a flat contradiction of the iext^ it is 
not good English. The Apostle says they searched 
whether what he taught was true or not: the Romanists 
say they did no such thing: whom shall we believe? 
There is a text which papists frequently adduce to 
show that the scriptures should not be read by all, which 
proves directly the contrary. This may seem strange 
but it is true. The text is 2 Peter 3. 16. ''In which 
are some things hard to be understood, which they that 
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also th^ 
other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Here 
the papist triumphantly asserts that the Apostle dis- 
countenances the reading of the scriptures by the un- 
learned and unstable; but does not this text manifestly 
prove, that in those days they did read them ? How else 
could they possibly have wrested them to their destruc- 
tion ? could they do it without ever having read them ? 
And, besides, does the Apostle on this account, or be- 
cause there were many things hard to be understood, 
say one word discountenancing the reading of the scrip- 
tures ? No, neither of these reasons induced him to hint 
such an idea : and yet these reasons operate very pow- 
erfully with papists in not only hinting, but also decree- 



66 THE PROPRIETY OF 

ing the prohibition of the practice. In the verse pre- 
ceding, the Apostle says that '^his beloved brother Paul 
according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written 
untoyow:" then he states that many things he said were 
hard to be understood and that the unlearned, &c. wrest- 
ed them to their destruction; and in the succeeding verse, 
still addressing those to whom he said Paul had written, 
he says "ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these 
things before, beware lest ye also, being lead away with 
the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfast- 
ness." Now here is an important thing to be noticed. 
It is plain that those to whom Paul had written are here 
warned by the example of those who had wrested the scrip- 
tures to their own destruction, and are cautioned against 
doing the same thing. Now to whom was Paul's epis- 
tle, here spoken of, addressed.^ to the clergy? Then 
they are placed upon a level with the people, and cau- 
tioned, as equally liable to be so led away by the wick- 
ed as to wrest the scriptures to their own destruction 
(which I verily believe they often do. ) They should be 
withheld therefore from the clergy, for the same reason 
they are now withheld from the people! But will Papists 
admit that their clergy are thus warned by the example 
of the unlearned and unstable ? If not, it must be the 
people that are thus cautioned and exhorted to take 
warning by the example just stated. If so, two infer- 
ences follow, both equally destructive to the papal cause: 
the first is, that as those cautioned are the same as those 
to whom Paul addressed his epistle here spoken of, they 
must also have been ihejjeople*^ and if so, what right have 
the clergy to withhold from them what Paul expressly 
addressed to them? The next inference is, that the peo- 
ple^ thus cautioned, mttst have had the scriptures, and 
must have been in the habit of reading them, else what 
meaning is there in the caution to beware and to take 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 67 

warning by the example of the unlearned ? If the scrip- 
tures had been withheld from them as they are now 
from the people, they would have needed no such cau- 
tion, neither would the unlearned and unstable have 
had an opportunity of wresting them to their destruction. 
So much for that famous passage so confidently relied 
on by papists in support of their prohibition. 

We now come to examine the testimony of the Fa- 
thers; And here, before we begin, it may be well to 
observe that the Fathers have been forced through the 
Expurgatory mill; and there is now an edition, in w^hich 
they all speak one voice as nearly as possible, and from 
which every thing is expunged that is at all offensive to 
Romish sensibility. 

By this index expurgatorious those sentences in the 
writings of the Fathers, which favor the general reading 
of the scriptures, are carefully blotted out, ''lest they 
puzzle young students and confirm the heretics." The 
expressions of Athanasius that the Holy Scriptures are 
to be known of the common people and the magistrates, 
and that the Holy Scriptures are so plain that any one 
may understand them, are all erased. Also in Chrysos- 
tom, when he says the scriptures are to be read of all ; 
the scriptures contain all things necessary, &c. these are 
all blotted out. The other editions are in the catalogue 
of books, prohibited by the council of Trent. 

Origen, of the third century, though his father was a 
layman, knew the scriptures from a child. His father, 
whose name was Leonidas^ set him to studying the 
scriptures, before any thing else ; and so anxious was he 
that his son should be thoroughly acquainted with them, 
that he daily assigned him a portion of them, as a task 
to commit to memory,* and he must have been a child 
at this time, for he was not seventeen years of age, when 

* Euseb. Hist. Ecdes. lib. yi, c. ^. 



68 THE PROPRIETY OF 

his father suffered martyrdom. In those days, there- 
fore, laymen not only read the scriptures, but even 
taught them to their children. And Origen himself thus 
writes ' ' We beseech you not to content yourselves to 
hear the word of God when read in the church, but to 
apply yourselves to it at home, and to meditate upon it 
day and night. Christ has commanded us to meditate 
in the Law of the Lord, when we walk by the way, and 
when we sit in our houses, when we lie down and 
when we rise up.""^ 

Irenaeus says, that ''all the scriptures both of the 
prophets, and of the gospels, may be alike heard of all 
men."t 

Chrysostom says, ''the reading of the scriptures is 
more necessary for laymen than for monks. "± Again 
he says, *'the people ought, as soon as they come home 
from the church, to turn over the holy books, and to 
call their wives and children together to the conference 
of those things which are said. "§ Again he says, "Hear, 
I pray you, all ye laymen, provide you Bibles, which is 
the medicine of the soul. If you will nothing else, at 
least, get the New Testament, the Apostles, the Acts, 
and the Gospels. ''i| Let priests noiO make such a speech 
from the pulpit, and what would be the consequence.^ 

Augustine says to his hearers. "It may not suffice 
that you hear the divine scriptures read in the churches, 
but in your houses, either read them yourselves or get 
others to read, and do you readily hearken to them. If 
any be so employed^ that before his repast he cannot 
have liesure, let it not grieve him to read something of 
them at his meal. "1| 

* See his horn. 9 in Livit. f See Iren. lib, II. c. 55, 

t See Chrys. com. Matt. horn. 2. § Ibid. horn. 5. 

- -^ II See Chrys. in Epi. ad Coloss. Horn. 9. 

t^^* Aug. De Tempore serm. 55, 56, 57, De Sanctis serm. 
38. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 69 

In the writings of Cyril of Alexandria against Julian 
the apostate, we find that in his time it was the practice 
not only to read the scriptures, but also to train up their 
children in the knowledge of them; and this general 
and promiscuous reading of the holy scriptures was ri- 
diculed and objected to by Julian; (surely the Roman- 
ists keep good company in their objections to this prac- 
tice!) and Cyril labours to refute his objections by 
showing what great advantages arose from the practice, 
above all that could be expected from the learning of 
tlie Greeks.* We will now go back a little to the tes- 
timony of Chrysostom and give his most pointe-l and 
striking expressions on this point. In his 49th hom. c. 
24. on Matt, he says, ^'But wherefore ought all Chris- 
tians at this time to have recourse to the scriptures?" 
This is the question so often put by Romanists. Hear 
the answer of this eloquent Father; ''Because," says 
he, ''at this time, since heresy has infected the churchy 
the divine scriptures only can afford a proof of genuine 
Christianity." A little further on he continues, "But 
at the present, (i. e. during the rage of heresy) there is 
no other method left to those who are willing to discover 
the true church of Christ, but by the scriptures only." 
What can be more pointed and explicit than this? Ro- 
manists are continually complaining, and would fain 
make us believe that the reading of the scriptures 
breeds heresy: here Chrysostom says it is the only way 
to prevent it: he lets the inquisition have no share in 
the honour of stopping heresy; he expressly declares also 
that it is by the scriptures alone that the true church 
can be discovered. Romanists now have traditions 
which they produce as evidence that theirs is the only 
true church. Are not they and this father at variance, 
one declaring scripture to be the only method^ the other 

♦ See his work contra, julianum. lib. 7. 
G 2 



TO THE PROPRIETY OF 

denying it? Again he says,-^ '"^It is absurd while we will 
not trust other people in pecuniary matters, but choose 
to count and calculate our money ourselves, that in af- 
fairs of much greater consequence, we should implicitly 
follow the opinions of others, especially as we are pos- 
sessed of the most exact and perfect rule and measure 
by which w^e may regulate our several inquiries, I mean 
the regulations of the divine laws; wherefore I could 
wish that all of you would jieglect what this or that man 
asserts for truths and that you would investigate all 
these things in the scriptures,^^ What can be stronger 
against the practice of withholding the scriptures, than 
this? Enough, we think, has now been said from the 
Fathers to show that they did not approve of, nor prac- 
tice, the withholding of the scriptures from the com- 
mon people and the ''unlearned vulgar," as they have 
been called. Witnesses of every century for twelve 
hundred years might be adduced to prove the same 
thing: and the Synod of Tholouse, in the year 1228, 
was the first to prohibit the reading of the scriptures: 
Their decree is in these words: ''We forbid that lay- 
men be permitted to have the books of the Old and New 
Testament, unless perhaps some out of devotion, desire 
to have the Psalter or Breviary for divine offices, and 
the hours of the blessed Virgin; but even those now 
mentioned, they may not have translated in the vulgar 
tongue.'^^ This decree was occasioned by the preach- 
ing of the Waldenses^ who taught that the holy scrip- 
tures were the only rule by which men were to judge of 
articles of faith: and that whatever was not agreeable 
to the word of God ought to be rejected. They agreed 
with Chrysostom (before quoted) in this respect. 

Wickliff, who was the "morning star of the reforma- 
tion,^^ was fully impressed with the impropriety of with- 
* Horn. 13, in 2 Ep. ad. Cor. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 71 

holding the scriptures from the people, and with a zeal 
fearless and well directed, gave to his countrymen the 
holy scriptures in their own language, which rendered 
him obnoxious to the anathemas of the church. We 
have already had occasion to say that the simple fact, 
that before the publication of Wickliflf s translation, the 
people were actually destitute of the word of God, 
added to the severe displeasure of the church which he 
incurred by that publication, clearly shows that it is a 
principle of that church to keep the people in as great 
ignorance of the scriptures as possible. But Wickliff 
saw the danger, the impiety, the cruelty, the injustice 
of this principle; he deeply felt for those who were thus 
permitted, by those who were appointed to feed and 
guide them, to perish for lack of knowledge, and with 
pious courage, he endeavoured to supply their spiritual 
necessities to some extent by giving them the Bible in 
their own language. His view of the- people's right to 
read the scriptures is strikingly expressed in the fol- 
lowing extract. "'Wickliff in one place defines the 
church to be the congregation of just men for whom 
Christ shed his blood. And in others he speaks thus : 
'Scripture is the faith of the church, and the more it is 
known in an orthodox sense, the better; therefore as 
secular men ought to know the faith, the divine word is 
to be taught them in whatever language is best known 
to them. The truth of the faith is clearer and more ex- 
act in the scripture, than the priests know how to ex- 
press it; and if one may say so, there are many prelates 
who are ignorant of scripture, and others who conceal 
things contained it. It seems useful therefore that the 
faithful should themselves search and discover the sense 
of the faith, by having the scriptures in a language which 
they know and understand. Christ and his apostles 
converted men, by making known to them the scriptures 



72 THE PROPRIETY OF 

in that language which was familiar to them. Why 
then ought not the modern disciples of Christ to collect 
fragments from the loaf; and, as they did, clearly open 
the scriptures to the people, that they may know them? 
The apostle teaches, that we must all stand before the 
judgment-seat of Christ, and be answerable for all the 
goods entrusted to us; it is necessary therefore the 
faithful should know these goods and the use of them, 
that they may give a proper answer. For the answer 
by a prelate or an attorney will not then avail, but every 
one must answer in his own person. '* 

In this manner did our zealous reformer argue for the 
propriety of a translation of the Bible into the English 
language. ''t 

Let us now consider some of the objections that are 
usually raised against the promiscuous reading of the 
scriptures. And here two things are to be noticed: 1st. 
If the Romanists do not prohibit the general reading of 
the scriptures, whence come the objections, we are about 
to consider ? 2d. It will be, perhaps, said that these ob- 
jections are not to the reading, so much as to the abuse 
of the scriptures : that is, the mischiefs do not arise so 
much from promiscuous reading as from the abuse which 
is occasioned by such reading. 

But 'all the mischief is the very abuse itself and if 
promiscuous reading will always occasion this abuse, the 
objection must and ought to be to the promiscuous read- 
ing : for if the abuse always follows the promiscuous 
reading, the danger is the same from both, and not more 
from one than the other. Therefore to remedy the abuse 
is to prohibit promiscuous reading, which is the very 
thing they have done as we have before shown. It is 
mere quibbling, therefore to say that the objection is not 

• Great Sentence.— Spec. Secul.— Doctr. Christ. 
t Milner's Church Hist. vol. iv. p. 398. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 73 

to the promiscuous reading but to the abuse of it. But 
pray, by whom is the Bible most abused ? by the honest 
layman who takes it as the man of his counsel t or the 
Romanist who regards it as the most dangerous book 
that can -be put into the hands of the common people ! 
It is a good antidote, they admit, and intended to coun- 
teract the poison of sin by which our race is infected, 
but if all were permitted to take it (although it is prepar- 
ed by God himself,) it would prove a poison to ninety- 
nine one hundredths of the people ! What kind of medi- 
cine is this that will kill one hundred where it cures one^ 
of those who take it ? This, to be sure, is a great com- 
pliment to pay to the word of God, which should dwell 
in us richly, and which is a lamp to our feet and a light 
to our path! 

One reason urged by papists why the scriptures should 
not be promiscuously read, is their great obscurity. It 
is on this account, they contend, that there exists so 
much diversity among those who read the scriptures and 
judge for themselves. But it is evident to any one who 
will examine the subject that the greatest diversities are 
about the plainest texts. For instance, after Christ 
had blessed the wine at the supper with his disciples, he 
called it ih^ fruit of the'^ine, "1 will not henceforth 
drink of this fruit of the vine, &c." But papists will 
not understand this text as we do, although it is so 
plain. Christ calls it the fruit of the vine, but they will 
interpret it to mean his own blood. They will have it, 
that it was his own real blood that he held in the cup. 
But surely the text is plain enough. So also when he 
says ' ' drink ye all of it. " They will not understand it 
to mean all, but only a part : so also in 1 Cor. xi. 26, 
Christ calls the bread by this name after he liad conse- 
crated it, ''for as often as ye eat this bread, &c." But 
papists will understand him to mean his own body I 



74 THE PROPRIETY OF 

They will believe that he held his own body in his 
hand, and though he called it bread, yet he meant his 
body ! ! Now is this perversion, this gross perversion of 
language and sense to be attributed to the obscurity of 
text ? Is it not as plain as ''In the beginning was the 
word and the word was God" ? And with what face can 
papists accuse Socinians of perverting the plainest texts 
of scripture ? Is not the perversion of one as gross as 
tliat of the other ? But the Fathers did not think the 
scriptures were so obscure. Chrysostom says, ''all things 
necessary are manifest."* 

''There is no man," says Angus tinet "but may draw 
tlience (from the scriptures) that which is sufficient for 
him, provided he comes devoutly and piously affected 
as true religion requires." Pope Gregory! says, "the 
little children and the men of full stature, the strong 
and the weak do there (in the scripture) find that living 
water that springs up even to Heaven. It offers itself 
to all and it suits itself to all. It hath a simplicity that 
abases itself to the most simple souls and a height that 
exercises and raises the most lofty." In Isaiah xxxv. 
8. It is expressly declared, the way of holiness the un- 
clean shall not pass over ; and that the wayfaring men, 
though fools, shall not err th^ein. Chrysostom assigns 
a very different cause of heresy from the obscurity of 
scripture. He says, 'Hhe ignorance of the scripture is a 
great precipice and a deep pit. It is this that hath 
brought forth heresies. This that has brought in cor- 
rupt life ;"§ and instead of prohibiting the people to 
read the scriptures, he expressly tells them "to go often 
over the dark and unknown passages, and if thou canst 
not by continual reading find out what is said, go to thy 

* See Horn. 3. in 2. ad Thess. f De utilitate cred. c. 6. 
t As he is quoted by the authors of the preface to the Mons. 
Testament p. 9. 

§ See Cbrys. de Lazaro, serm. 3 Tom. v. p, 145. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 75 

teacher, if he shall not teach thee, God will.''* Here 
the people are exhorted to study diligently, to go often 
over and to read continually those very passages which 
aie dark and obscure. But is this the plan adopted by 
papists ? No, they will not permit the people to read 
them at all ; and so far from endeavouring to ascertain 
the meaning themselves before they apply for instruction 
to their teachers, they regard it presumption to attempt 
such a thing, and should the private investigation result 
in an interpretation different from that of the church, 
the offender is liable to be punished at the Bishop's plea- 
sure by order of the Council of Trent. 

If the Scriptures be so unintelligible, did Christ and 
his Apostles speak intelligibly to the people or not } If 
not, how came so many to be pricked to the heart and 
converted ? Is it not impious to charge obscurity on the 
verbal communications of God, which he intended the 
people should understand ? They may not have com- 
prehended the mysteries which he spoke ; But they un- 
derstood plain facts as he related them : For instance, 
Nicodemus understood Christ to say he must be born 
again : he understood the fact that there was a necessity 
of being born again, but he did not comprehend the na- 
ture of that birth, or see the reason of its necessity. 
Christ has not explained the mode of conversion ; and 
the reason of its necessity can only be seen by the re- 
newed mind. Therefore Nicodemus understood neither 
—but yet it pleased Christ to preach to him the doc- 
trine of the new birth. Its obscurity was no reason 
why it should be withheld. Our Saviour, therefore, 
spoke with sufficient clearness and intelligibieness to 
Nicodemus, and so did all the Apostles to all their 
hearers ; and if so, why is their language more unintel- 
ligible and obscure when reduced to writing, than when 

* Ibid p, 244—45. 



76 THE PROPRIETY OF 

delivered verbally ? If Christ and his Apostles could 
only be understood by a chosen few, why did they speak 
to all that would hear them ? why did they preach pro- 
miscuously to allj and yet the verj^ same words, when 
reduced to writing, and when a far better opportunity 
of studjang, at leisure, their full import, is afforded, 
must not be read promiscuously by all, because, on ac- 
count of their great obscurity, they can not be under- 
stood by all ? The cause of misapprehension, therefore, 
can not be the ignorance or the weakness of the people, 
else these doctrines never would have been preached to 
them promiscuously, as we have shown they were. But 
the cause must be in the inherent obscurity of the scrip- 
tures themselves; and if the Scriptures themselves be 
so unintelligible, how does the church come to under- 
stand them? If it is only by human means, together 
with the ordinary assistance of the Holy Ghost, why is 
the knowledge of them confined to the clergy ? Has not 
every humble and devout reader of the sacred word the 
same assistance ? But if the church (by which is to be 
understood the clergy) have extraordinary divine assist- 
ance, she must at least have the inspiration of superin- 
tendance^ for between this, and the ordinary influences 
of the spirit there is no medium. Now if they have 
this inspiration, I see no use for the Scriptures at all, for 
God could make his revelations to the church without a 
writtten rule as well as with one. 

But how are we to be assured that the church expounds 
by inspiration, or by this supernatural guidance ? The 
Apostle tells us not to believe every spirit, but to try 
the spirits. But how shall we try the church of Rome ? 
There are but two ways, by miracle or by scripture 
The church of Rome does indeed profess to work mira- 
cles, but unfortunately they never convince any but 
those who would believe her dogmas without miracles, 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 77 

or any other kind of proof. With this engine also, 
says the learned and pious Calvin, the simplicity of the . 
vulgar was assailed by the Donatists, who abounded in 
miracles. We therefore give the same answer now to 
our adversaries (the Papists) as Augustine gave to the 
Donatists, that our Lord has cautioned us against these 
miracle-mongers by his prediction, that there should 
arise false prophets, who by various signs and lying won- 
ders, should ''deceive, if possible the very elect.'' And 
Paul has told us that the kingdom of anti-christ would 
be "with all power, and signs and lying wonders. " But 
these miracles they say, are wrought, not by idols, or 
sorcerers, or false prophets, but by Saints, as if we were 
ignorant, that it is a stratagem of Satan to transform 
himself into an angel of light. What shall we say then, 
but that it has been, and ever will be, the most righteous 
vengeance of God, to ''send those who receive not the 
love of the truth, strong delusions, that they should be- 
lieve a lie."* 

But if the church of Rome does really work miracles, 
let them be wrought openly and not in a corner, and 
let tliese miracles appeal for conviction and confirma- 
tion to the senses of men^ as did every miracle wrought 
by our Lord or his Apostles. For surely that miracle 
can prove nothing, that carries with it no evidence of its 
own existence, such as transubstantiation: we must believe 
without evidence that this is a miracle, before it can be 
used as proof of any thing else : But how are we to 
know that the elements are changed t' Our senses do not 
tell us, but plainly contradict it : what evidence tliere- 
fore have we but the church's own word ^ The miracle 
is mentioned as proof that what the church says is true : 
But the whole evidence of the miracle depends upon 
what it was intended to prove, namely, the truth of the 

* Calvin's Inst. ded. p. 15. 

H 



78 THE PROPRIETY OF &C. 

church. The miracle therefore proves the church, and 
the church, to return the favor, 'proves the miracle.' 
We must try the church of Rome by more evident mi- 
racles than this ; and if she decline the attestation of 
her dogmas by miracles, Scripture is the only rule left 
by which to judge of her pretences to supernatural gui- 
dance and assistance. If she agree to be thus tried, 
then there is a way of understanding the scriptures with- 
out this extraordinary assistance : For we must not ad- 
mit the use and authority of the church's inspiration in 
the interpretation of texts, when the proof of that inspi- 
ration is the thing we are in search of, and which de- 
pends upon that interpretation. For if we must under- 
derstMid the scriptures by inspiration, and inspiration 
by the scriptures, we at once get into a circle of false 
reasoning ; and it is really in this circle that papists are 
constantly whirled round : while attempting to prove 
from scripture that the Romish Church is the true 
church. For if the true church is to be known only 
from the scriptures, and the scriptures are unintelligible 
till the church expounds them; then the church is to be 
known by the scriptures and the scriptures by the church. 
To know the church we must Jirst understand the scrip- 
tures; and to understand the scriptures we must^r^^ 
know the church : ^So that both must be Jirst known or 
we can not understand either. 

This leads us to the consideration of another objection 
to the promiscuous reading of the scriptures ; namely, 
that it makes private reason the rule of Scripture. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE PROPRIETY OF WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES 
CONTINUED. 

« From a child thou hast known the Scriptures.*^ 

Paul to limothy. 

** Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom.** 

Paul 

<*I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all 
the holy brethren." Paul 

" These (the Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessa- 
lonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, 
and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were 
so." ^ch xvii. 11. 

Another objection urged bj papists, to the promiscu- 
ous reading of the Scriptures is, that "It makes private 
reason the rule of Scripture,'^^ It was on this account 
that the Council of Trent decreed that no man presume 
to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense of the church 
and the unanimous consent of the Fathers. But what is 
meant by judging of Scripture by private reason ? Is it 
not to use our reason and judgment and capacity of eve- 
ry kind, with what helps we can get, in ascertaining the 
true will of God as contained in his written revelation ? 
And is this forbidden by God? Is it not expressly 
enjoined as a duty? In Isaiah v. 3. does he not 
make the people the judge of his righteous and mer- 
ciful dealing? ''and now Inhabitants of Jerusalem 
and men of Judah, judge ^ I pray you, betwixt me and 
my vineyard, &c.'' Is not here a direct appeal to pri- 
vate reason ? Again in Acts iv. 19. when Peter and 
John were commanded by the Jewish Council to refrain 
from preaching, they answered and said unto them 
*' whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto 
you more than unto God, judge ye.'' Is not here ano^^ 



80 THE PROPRIETY OF 

ther direct appeal to private reason ? Did Pope Peter 
issue a bull of excommunication against the whole San- 
hedrim for presuming to judge whether what he taught 
\vas contrary to, or in accordance with the Scriptures ? 
Does he not here call upon them to judge? also our Sa- 
viour addressing the multitude, and telling them that 
tliey could judge of the signs of the weather and discern 
tlie face of the sky and of the earth, says, ''yea, and why 
even of yourselves judge yejiot what is ng-Af F"* This 
is plain, pointed and easy to be understood. 

Again, Paul, after giving the Corinthians an exhorta- 
tion says,t ''I speak as to wdse men, judge ye what I 
say.*^ How could they judge what he said without the 
use of private reason? In* John (x. 37, 38.) our Saviour 
makes as direct an appeal to the private judgment of the 
people as could possibly be made. ''If" says he, "1 do 
not the w^orks of my father, believe me not. But if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the w^orks, &c. " now^ I 
appeal to every man's good sense, if Christ does not here 
leave it to the private reason of every one to judge whe- 
ther or not he did the works of his Father. He does not 
roundly and positively and dogmatically assert that he 
did his Father's works, but appealing to private reason 
and private judgment, he says, '4f I do not, believe me 
not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the 
works which you see me do." What can be plainer 
than this ? and indeed the greater part of our Saviour's 
discourses are by way of reference or appeal to private 
reason. We often find him, as well as the Apostles, 
speaking interrogatively; which would be ridiculous if the 
persons addressed w ere not to exercise their own private 
reason. It is on this account that interrogation is some- 
times the strongest affirmation. It is a confident appeal 
to private reason ; so confident is the speaker or writer 

*j4uke xii. ^r. t^ ^°^'' ^' ^^- 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 81 

of the truth of what he says, that he is willing to sus- 
pend the decision upon the private judgment of his hear- 
ers or readers. What were all the miracles wrought by 
Christ and his Apostles but so many appeals to private 
reason and judgment ? Altliough inspired and divinely 
commissioned, yet they condescended to prove their di- 
vine commission ; they used no physical force, demand- 
ed no blind belief, asked no sacrifice of private reason; 
but conscious of supporting truth they appealed to every 
man's conscience and judgment. They required no be- 
lief, where there was not sufficient evidence. In a word 
their whole testimony from beginning to end, was one 
continued appeal to private reason and judgment | they 
appeal constantly to the Law and to the testimony, and 
was not tliis admitting the right of the people to exercise 
their private reason in judging whether what they preach- 
ed accorded with Holy Writ or not ? Otherwise, what 
sense was there in appealing to Scripture ? In what other 
way can rational conviction be effected ? When papists 
are endeavouring to win proselytes, do they not use ar- 
guments calculated to affect and bias private judgment ? 
Do they not use Scripture in the same way ? and is not 
the true interpretation of the texts which they quote, re- 
ferred to private reason and judgment .^ Surely they 
would not pretend to make a protestant believe as they 
do, whether he will or not No, papists every day act 
upon the very principle which they condemn. When 
they undertake to defend the decrees of their Councils by 
quoting Scripture, is it not an appeal to private reason ? 
To be consistent, they should never deign to argue a 
point of faith. If the church has settled it, that is suffi- 
cient I private reason has nothing to do with it. If the 
people will not submit and believe, they must be punish- 
ed ; all attempt to convince them that it is true, is mak- 
ing private reason the rule of Scripture j and every ex- 

H 2 



82 THE PROPRIETY OF 

ercise of judgment in matters of faith, is rebellion against 
the church. 

The truth is that every man who joins the Roman 
Church without exercising his private reason and judg- 
ment, acts like a machine and not like a rational and ac- 
countable being. He takes up his belief upon trust,, 
and is lead through his religion by the hand without see- 
ing where he is, or whither he is going. If he be asked 
a reason of his faith, never having exercised his 
reason, he has none to give; he believes he is right be- 
cause the church says so; and he believes the church 
says what is right, because she says she does. So that 
he is completely blind-folded. He dare not, under a 
heavy penalty, believe differently from the church, even 
though he be convinced she is wrong. When a text of 
Scripture is quoted as containing a certain doctrine, 
though there be no more connexion between them, than 
between purgatory and ''in the beginning God created 
the Heavens and the Earth" (and between many of their 
doctrines and their Scripture support, there is not half 
as much,) yet he is bound to believe that the doctrine is 
taught in the text quoted. He dare not believe other- 
wise. But it has been said that a man must use his pri- 
vate reason in ascertaining which is the true church, but 
having once found it, he must then take the sense of 
Scripture upon the church's word. But is it credible, 
tliat God would enable a man to make a correct judg- 
ment in the most fundamental and important matter of 
all, viz. to discern the true religion and the true church 
from the false, for no other end, but to enable him to 
choose once for all to whom he should resign and en- 
slave his judgment for ever afterwards } Would it not 
be just as reasonable to say, that God had given a man 
eyes, for no other end, but to look out once for all, and 
select some discreet person to lead liim about blind-fold 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 83 

all the days of his life ? Besides, a man must judge of 
the sense of Scripture, before he can know which is the 
true church, for that can only be known by her doctrines, 
and their accordance with Scripture 5 a man therefore 
must know what the doctrine of a church is, before he 
can know it to be a true church. But he must know 
the sense of Scripture before he can know what are its 
doctrines, he must therefore know the sense of Scripture 
before he can know the true church. What degree of 
credit and authority should be given to a guide, and what 
not, in this matter, will appear from the following plain 
and familiar case stated by Archbishop Tillotson, ' 'Sup- 
pose I came a Stranger into England^ and landing at 
Dover^ took a Guide there to conduct me in my way to 
York^ which I knew before by the Map to lie North of 
Dover: Having committed myself to him, if he led me 
for two or three days together out of any plain Road, and 
many times over Hedge and Ditch, 1 cannot but think it 
strange, that in a civil and well -inhabited Country there 
should be no highways from one part of it to another: 
Yet thus far I submit to him, though not without some 
regret and impatience. But then if after this, for two 
or three days more he lead me directly Souths and with 
my Face, full upon the Sun at noonday, and at last bring 
me back again to Dover Pere; and still bid me follow 
him: Then certainly no Modesty does oblige a Man not 
to dispute with his Guide, and to tell him surely that 
can be no way, because it is Sea, Now though he set 
never so bold a Face upon the matter, and tell me with 
all the gravity and authority in the World, That it is not 
the Sea but Dry Land under the species and appearance 
of Water; and that whatever my Eyes tell me, having 
once committed myself to his guidance, I must not trust 
my own Senses in the case; it being one of the most dan- 
gerous sorts of Infidelity for a Man to believe his own 



84 THE PROPRIETY OF 

Eyes rather than his faithful and infallible Guide: All 
this moves me not^ But I begin to expostulate roundly 
with him, and to let him understand that if I must not 
believe what I see, he is like to be of no farther use to 
me; because I shall not be able, at this rate, to know 
whether I have a Guide, and whether I follow him or 
not. In short, I tell him plainly, that when I took him 
for my Guide, I did not take him to tell me the diifer- 
ence between North and Souths between a Hedge and a 
Highway y between Sea and dry Land; all this I knew 
before, as well as he or any Man else could tell me; but 
I took him to conduct and direct me the nearest way to 
Yorh And therefore after all his impertinent Talk, 
after all his Motives of Credibility to persuade me to be- 
lieve him, and all his confident Sayings, which he grave- 
ly calls Demonstrations, I stand stifly upon the shore, 
and leave my learned and reverend Guide to take his 
own course, and to dispose of himself as he pleaseth; 
but firmly resolved not to follow him. And is any Man 
to be blamed that breaks with his Guide upon these 
Terms? 

And this is truly the case, when a man commits himself 
to the guidance of any person or church: If by vu'tue 
of this authority they will needs persuade me out of my 
senses, and not to believe what I see, but what they say, 
that Virtue is Vice, and Vice FJr/i^e, if they declare them 
to be so. * And that because they say they are infallible, 
I am to receive all their dictates for Oracles, though never 
so evidently false and absurd in the judgment of all man- 

•We ard told by Bellarmine, that if the Pope should err by 
enjoining vices or forbidding virtues, the church would be bound 
to believe vices to be good, and virtues evil, unless it would sin 
against conscience. "Si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, 
vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse 
bona;et virtutes xnalas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.*' 

J3elLdeFmt.4.5, 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 85 

kind: In this case there is no way to be rid of these un- 
reasonable people, but to desire of them, since one kind- 
ness deserves another, and all Contradictions are alike 
easy to be believed, that they would be pleased to be- 
lieve that Infidelity is Faith, and that when I absolutely 
renounce their Authority, I do yield a most perfect sub- 
mission and obedience to it."* 

But even granting that when a man knows the true 
church he must then understand the Scriptures as the 
church does^ yet let me ask why must he do so? Is it 
because he has reason or no reason to do so? Papists 
will not say he has no reason, for they themselves 
give reasons why he must; and if it be because he 
has reason, then he makes his reason the judge of Scrip- 
ture as well as the protestant. For the difficulty is 
only removed one step farther back, he has made 
his private reason the judge of the church, and it 
is on this account that he is willing for the church 
to be his judge of scripture. So that in reality he judges 
scripture by his own private reason and judgment at 
last. And why do papists believe that there should be 
an infallible church? Is it not because it is reasonable 
tliat there should be such a church? If so, does not such 
a belief rest upon private reason? And if it has been 
considered reasonable by a council, does not the private 
reason of every man who believes it, agree with the 
opinion of the Council? and is it not on this account 
that he believes it? The reasonableness of the thing is 
relied on by papists as the strongest proof of the fact, 
and if so, is not the belief far from being infallible, 
since it is founded merely on reasons why it should be 
believed, and not on any infallibleproof of infallibility? 
but more of this when we come to speak of infallibility. 

The Council of Trent requires that no private inter- 
pretation should differ from the unanimous consent of 
♦Tiliotson's Works, p. 232. 



86 THE PROPRIETY OF 

tiie Fathers; but before there was any council convened, 
did not the Fathers interpi-et scripture according to 
their own reason and judgment? And, even after Coun- 
cils had been convened, did they not teach doctrines 
which the Councils had not settled, according to their 
own ^private views of scripture truth? And were the 
Fathers infallible, so that their private reason must be 
made the guide of our interpretation? Was their private 
reason less liable to err than ours? And besides, as many 
of the Fathers differed among themselves, (for they have 
been made unanimous only by the index expurgatorious) 
whose private reason must we follow? * 'Those holy 
men,'' says Calvin, speaking of the Fathers, *'were ig- 
norant of many things, frequently at variance with each 
otlier, and sometimes even inconsistent with them- 
selves."* For instance, Origen taught that after long 
periods of time, the damned shall be released from their 
torments and restored to a new state of probation;! he 
also held that souls were condemned to animate mortal 
bodies, in order to expiate faults they had committed in 
a previous state of existence;! he also held, as is well 
known, that the true meaning of the sacred writers was 
to be sought in a mysterious and hidden sense. Now 
surely no one will pretend to say that all the fathers 
held these notions. Augustine believed that the eucha- 
rist should be administered to infants; but this is not 
now a doctrine of the church, and if we deemed it ne- 
cessary we might easily show that all the noise about 
the unanimous consent of the Fathers is a mere sham, 
without any foundation in truth. 

Here it may be observed, in the language of Arch- 
bishop Tillotson, that ''this liberty of judging is not so 
to be understood as to take away the necessity and use 

* Calvin Inst. Ded. p. 16. 

t See Buck's Theo. Die. word Origen. tibid. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRKPTURES. 87 

of guides and teachers in religion. Nor can this be de- 
nied to be a reasonable limitation, because the knowledge 
of revealed religion is not a thing born with us, nor or- 
dinarily supernaturally infused into men: but is to be 
learned as other things are. And if it be to be learned, 
there must be some to teach and instruct others: and 
they that will learn must be modest and humble; and in 
those things, of which they are no competent judges^ 
they must give credit to their teachers, and trust their 
skill: For instance, every unlearned man is to take it 
upon the credit of those who are skillful, that the scrip- 
tures are truly and faithfully translated; and for the un- 
derstanding of obscure texts of scripture, and more dif- 
ficult points in religion, he is to rely upon those whose 
proper business and employment it is to apply them- 
selves to the understanding of these things. For in 
these cases every man is not capable of judging himself, 
and therefore he must necessarily trust others: and in 
all other things he ought to be modest; and unless it be in 
plain matters, which every man can judge of, he ought 
rather to distrust himself than his teacher. 

And this respect may be given to a teacher, without 
eitlier supposing him to be infallible, or making an ab- 
solute resignation of my judgment to him. A man may 
be a very able teacher, (suppose of the mathematics) 
and fit to have the respect which is due to a teacher, 
though he be not infallible in those sciences: and be- 
cause infallibility is not necessary to such a teacher, it 
is neither necessary nor convenient, that I should abso- 
lutely resign up my judgment to him. For though I 
have reason to credit him, within the compass of his art, 
in things which I do not know, I am not therefore bound 
to believe him in things plainly contrary to what I and 
all mankind do certainly know. For example, if upon 
pretence of his skill in arithmetic, which I am learning 



88 THE PROPRIETY OF 

of him, he should tell me, that twice two do not make 
four^ butfive^ though I believed him to be the best ma- 
thematician in the world, yet I cannot believe him in 
this thing: nor is there reason I should; because I did 
not come to learn this of him, but knev^ as much of that 
before as he or any man else could tell me. The case 
is the same in matters of religion; in which there are 
some things so plain, and lie so level to all capacities, 
that every man is almost equally judge of them. "^ 

The exercise of private reason is not excluded, even 
by settling points of faith by a general council. AVe 
are to believe the doctrines set forth by councils/or the 
same reasons that the councils set them forth, or we are 
not; if the former, then we make private reason the rule 
of scripture: For instance, we believe in the eternal 
God -head of Christ for the same reason that the Fathers 
assembled in the Nicene Council did; and was not that 
reason tlieir own private judgment.^ Was it not their 
own conviction of its truth derived from their own pri- 
vate interpretation of scripture? For what council had 
previously determined it? If none, then no decree of a 
council, no interpretation of the church, was the ground 
of their faith, but their own private views of scripture; 
for to say that the Nicene Fathers first decreed it, and 
then believed it, is to talk nonsense. So that if we are 
to believe doctrines for the same reason that councils set 
them forth, we must make private reason the rule of 
scripture. But if not, and we are to believe in the eter- 
nal God-head of Christ for other reasons than those for 
which the Nicene Fathers believed it, then we have at 
once two different reasons of faith^ which is absurd. 
We must, therefore, at last resort to private judgment; 
and as to the point just mentioned, on what foundation 
did the belief of the whole Christian church rest, before 

• Tillotson's Works, p. 227. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 89 

it was settled by the Nicene Council? The church, as 
such, had given no interpretation, and had defined no 
particular faith, and if the private interpretation of scrip- 
ture was not the foundation, there was Rone. 

There are many points which the church has never 
undertaken to define and settle, and if I should doubt 
on some of these points, to whom should I go for the 
opinion of the church? to what infallible interpreter 
should I appeal? Councils do not expound scripture, 
but only define and settle points of faith^ and the pri- 
vate reason of doctors and priests applies texts of scrip- 
ture in support of articles of faith thus defined and set- 
tled. Before the first uninspired general council, how 
w as scripture interpreted ? by private reason, or by the 
church? If by the church, in what way? and where is 
the record of the fact? The truth is, in the early ages of 
the church, the people had not given up their senses 
and their souls to be disposed of at the pleasure of 
priests. Every man as a rational creature, searched the 
scriptures for himself; so that protestants have now the 
very same mode of ascertaining and interpreting scrip- 
ture truth, that the Christian world had in the early 
ages of the church, or at least before the first uninspired 
general council : So that making private reason the rule 
and judge of scripture, is no reason why the Bible 
should be withheld from the people- It is a solemn ob- 
ligation resting upon all to search the scriptures; and 
every objection to the general and promiscuous reading 
of the scriptures, recoils with great weight, and should 
with great confusion, upon the objector. To read the 
scriptures is the people's right, and while papists on the 
one hand profess to acknowledge and to favour the 
right, they do on the other hand prevent the free enjoy- 
ment of it, whenever and wherever they can. We have 



90 THE PROPRIETY 07 

shown it to be a principle of their church to do so, and 
they are bound to adhere to and practice it. 

Let us now notice two texts usually insisted on by 
papists as authority for withholding the scriptures from 
the common people, on the ground of obscurity. The 
first is 2 Peter iii. 1 6, where the apostle, speaking of 
Paul, says, ''as also in all his epistles speaking in them 
of these things; in which are some things hard to be un- 
derstood, which they that are unlearned and unstable, 
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own 
destruction." But of what is this spoken? of the epis- 
tles themselves, or of the doctrines contained in them? 
Surely of the latter; of what use was the epistle if it 
could not be understood? One of these very epistles he 
charges to be read to all the brethren. But if they 
could not understand what he said, where was the util- 
ity of reading it to them? and besides, if it was not for 
all to hear, would he have charged that it be read to 
all? We all grant that there are many doctrines which 
are hard to be understood, but deny that the apostle's 
statement of these doctrines is unintelligible. To say 
the contrary, is to say that the apostle's were block- 
heads. There is a vast difference between a doctrine 
being obscure, and the statement of it being obscure.* — 
The instance we mentioned a short time since, will 
serve to illustrate this: The doctrine of the new birth 
is unintelligible to carnal minds; but who in his senses 
could misunderstand our Saviour's language, ''ye must 
be born again?" Who would ever understand him to 
say ''ye must 7iot be born again?" We are told that this 
new birth is effected by the Holy Spirit through the 
word: who would understand that this meant it was not 
by the spirit? and not by the word? 

That the apostle alludes to the doctrines contained in 
the epistles and not to the epistles themselves, further 
Appears from the original. In the most approved man- 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 91 

uscripts and copies of the Greek text, "In which are 
sotne things, &c. refers to 'Hhese thiags^^ and not to 
"his epistles,^^ The original is en ois^ which can not re- 
fer to epistolais^ but must refer to foiiton. In some co- 
pies the reading is en ais, but not in those of the most 
authority. But admitting that the expression refers to 
the epistles, yet it does not prove that they should not 
be read, for we admit that there are in the epistles 
many things hard to be understood in the sense just 
explained. That these epistles were read by the un- 
learned and unstable is certain from the fact that they 
Avrested them to their own destruction; for how could 
they do this if they never read them? Augustine's au- 
thority will not be rejected by papists, and he says, ''no- 
thing is darkly spoken in any place which in other places 
of the scripture is not uttered most plainly. *'* 

The other text is ''Knowing this first that- no prophecy 
of the scriptures is of private interpretation, "t But this 
is nothing to the purpose: all that is here said is that no 
prophecy of scripture is any man's own private opinion, 
or an explication of his own mind, but a revelation of 
the mind of God. It is on this account called in the pre- 
ceding verse "a more sure word of prophecy," where- 
unto we do well to take heed. We have not, says he, 
in the 16th verse, followed cunningly devised fables, 
&c. for no prophecy of scripture is the mere opinion of a 
man. The prophets of the Lord did not speak or do 
any thing of their own mind, as Moses expressly says 
' 'I have not done any of the works (nor delivered any 
of the statutes and ordinances) of my own mind. ''J (But 
false prophets,) "speak a vision of their own heart, and 
not out of the mouth of the Lord. "§ The scriptures there- 
fore are not the effusions of a man's own private notions, 

♦See Aug. De doct. Christ, lib. II. c. 6. 

j;2 Peter, i. 20. ^ Numbers xvi. 28. f Jer. xxiii. 16. 



92 THE PROPRIETY OF 

but of the mind of God. For, continues the apostle, 
*'the pi'ophecy came not in old time by the will of man, 
but holy meli of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost." This text therefore has nothing to do 
with the subject under consideration. It proves the di- 
vinity of the scriptures, but not that they should be 
withheld from the common people. The scriptures are 
a revelation of God's will and merciful purposes to man, 
and they are therefore as much the property of the com- 
mon people as of the priests. 

The great objection urged by Romanists to the gene- 
ral reading of the scriptures is that it creates division in 
the church I for if every man judges for himself, they 
will all judge differently. But how came there to be so 
much difference of opinion among the early christians? 
Did it arise from permitting the scriptures to be read by 
the multitude? Papists will not allow tliat, for they con- 
tend that ''in those better times the people were not so 
ill and curious of themselves" as to read the Bible. 

But papists differ among themselves: almost every 
schoolman is the head of a sect. Are the points of differ- 
ence between the Lutherans and Calvinists, as numerous 
as between the Thomists and the Scotists?* Look at the 
dissentions between the regular and secular priests; look 
at the controversies between the Dominicans, the Fran- 
ciscans, ihe Benedictans, the Jesuits, the Jansenists, &c. 

* Thomas Aquinas (sometimes called the "Angelic Doc- 
tor,"} who lived in the thirteenth, and John Duns Scotus 
of the fourteenth century, (who acquired the name of the 
"Subtile Doctor,'*) became the heads of two powerful sects, 
called the Thomists and the Scotists, who were ever disput- 
ing* about the nature of the divine co-operation with the hu- 
man will, the measure of divine grace essential to salvation, per- 
sonal identity, and the immaculate conception of the Virgin . 
Mary, 8^c, 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 93 

look at the diiference between the Popes themselves, 
Greo-ory I, condemning the title of Universal Bishop as 
abominable and antichristian, and Boniface III, assum- 
ing it in virtue of the grant of Phocas. Look at Inno- 
cent I, holding the Eucharist to be necessary for in- 
fants,* and Pius lY, anathematizing all ^vho held such 
a doctrine.t Look at the opposite decrees of councils 
on the subject of image worship,± and say, do all these 
divisions arise from the reading of the scriptures by the 
common people.^ 

Papists also difier among themselves on the Pope's in- 
fallibility; his power over princes and his temporal do- 
minion; also on the canon of scripture; the sacrifice of 
the mass; communion in one kind; and Transubstan- 
tiation. As soon as this doctrine was established by the 
Lateran council the schoolmen started many questions. 
It was disputed by what means the change in the ele- 
ments was effected; whether by the benediction of the 
elements, or by repeating the words. Hoc est meum cor- 
pus. It was also started, what does ''Hoc^^ refer to in 
these words; whether to the substance, or bread, or bo- 
dy, or meat, or accidents, for it might mean this sub- 
stance, or this bread, or this body, or this meat, &c. It 
was then argued whether the elements were annihilat- 
ed; whether their matter and form being destroyed, their 
essence remained; or their essence being converted, 
their existence remained. Then they wrangled about 
the manner of the change, whether it was material or 
formal; or a change of the whole substance both matter 
and form; and if so, whether it was by way of produc- 
tion or by abduction^ &c. &c. &c. Was all this dispute 
and variety of opinion owing to the reading of the scrips 

*See Aug. Contr. duas Ep. Pelag. lib, 2. c. 4^ 
fSee cone. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 4. 
%Ste Fab. Diff. Rom. p. 41. note, 
1% 



94 THE PROPRIETY OF 

tures by the common people? It is evident that these dis- 
sentions arose among the learned, not among the com- 
mon people: and the history of the church confirms tliis 
observation. For wherever there is a split in any church, 
it is commenced by men of learning or shrewdness* 
Why did so many separate from the Romish church be- 
fore they had the Bible in their own tongue, and of course 
before they ever read it? It was not by reading, but by 
following WicklifFe, Luther, Zuinglius, &c. who were 
learned men. The learned clergy, therefore, should not 
be permitted to read the Bible and the Bishops of Bono- 
nia actually advised Julius III, not to permit any mortal 
to read more of the gospel than that little which is con- 
tained in the mass! 

Another great evil, which is nearly the same as the 
one just considered, is that the general reading of the 
scriptures breeds heresy; that is, induces those who read 
to renounce popery. This, I doubt not is the almost 
uniform consequence of reading the scriptures, and 
there is no wonder therefore that the practice should be 
prohibited by the Romish church. Cardinal Rodolpho 
Pio de Carpi, said that if the Bible be in the vulgar 
tongue, all men would become heretics. * Here we have 
the true reason of the prohibition under consideration. 
Romanists are afraid to have their doctrines and princi- 
ples examined in the light of scripture. The general 
reading of the scriptures would make all men protestants, 
and therefore, the Bible must not be generally and pro- 
miscuously read. Now what does this fact speak, but 
that the doctrines and practice of the Romish church are 
unscriptural? If they are not, how w^ould the reading of 
scripture induce any one to renounce them? Do not Ro- 
manists condemn themselves by making this objection? 
Is it not admitting the very thing for which we contend? 

*See Saeve's Hist, of the Coun. of Trent, lib. 5. p. 460. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 95 

and that this is the true reason of the prohibition papists 
themselves have admitted. Shortly after the Reforma- 
tion, a papist said, that if the people were permitted to 
read the Bible, they would all go over to the Lutherans. 
When the excellent, prudent, and public -spirited Swedish 
prince, Gustavus Vasa Ericson, had determined to in- 
troduce the reformation into his kingdom, the first object of 
his attention was, the iristriiction of his people in the sacred 
doctrines of the Holy Scriptures^ for which purpose he 
invited into his dominions several learned Germans, and 
spread abroad through" the kingdom, the Swedish trans- 
lation of the Bible, that had been made by Olus Petri.* 

The Bishops assembled at Bononia advised Julius 
III. not to permit a mortal to read more of the gospel 
than is contained in the mass, and that he labour with all 
his might that as little as possible be read in the cities 
under his dominion: And they assigned this reason, 
''that as long as the people were satisfied with that little 
affairs succeeded according to his (the Pope's) wish, but 
the contrary, when men began to read more. ''In brief,'' 
continue the Bishops, "this is the book which hath rais- 
ed the tempests and storms with which we are tossed, 
and the truth is, if any man shall diligently consider 
that book, and shall take a view of those things which 
are done in our churches, he will see that there is a vast 
disagreement between them and that our doctrine, is not 
only altogether different from that, hut which is more^ is 
often contrary to i^."t Of this same opinion was Peter Su- 
tor the Carthusian doctor; ' 'since many things, " says he, 
"are delivered to be observed, which are not expressly 
[taught] in the Holy Scriptures^ will not theunlearned ob- 
serving these things, be ready to murmur, complaining that 

*Mosheim's Eccl, Hist. vol. iv. p. 80. 

fSee Consil. de Stabiliend. Rom. Eccl. Vergeril. Tom. 1. p. 
102. 



96 THE PROPRIETY OF 

SO great burdens are laid upon them, by which their gospel 
liberty is sorely abridged! And will they not he easily 
withdrawn from observing the Constitutions of the (Ro- 
mish) church, when they shall see that they are not con- 
tained in the Law of Christ?^^^ This same Peter Sutor 
says, ''the translating of the scriptures into the vulgar 
tongue is a rash, useless and dangerous thing,'' and gives 
this reason for it, that ''the people will be apt to mur- 
mur when they see things required as from the Apostles, 
which they can not find a word of i7i scripture,*^\ 

Andradius, who was the interpreter of the Council of 
Trent, speaking of the prohibition by the Synod of Tho- 
louse, says, the taking of it away would be destructive to 
faith.J We are now able to understand Bellarmine when 
he says, "the people would not only receive no benefit, 
but would also receive hurt by the scriptures. "§ We 
confess that we are unable to answer the objection now 
under consideration. It is, we admit, strictly true, that 
the general reading of the scriptures would induce many, 
very many to leave the communion of the Romish church, 
and would prevent any from ever joining it. But 
for all that, we can not think that the scriptures should be 
withheld from the common people^ for the fault belongs 
not to the Scriptures, but to the Romish church. Two 
can not walk together except they be agreed. Now the 
Pope and the Bible have long been at variance, and I 
think they will never be reconciled; and this is confessed 
by the Bishops of Bononia, above mentioned, in their ad- 
vice to Julius III. They say, "But to confess the truth 
(which must be kept as a secret) in the time of the Apos- 
tles, and for some years after the apostles, there was no 

*See his work De Translat. Bibl. c. 22. fo. 96. 
flbid p. 99. 

tSee Andrad. defens. coun. Trid. lib. 4. 
§See Bell, de verbo. Dei. lib. II. c. 15. 



WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES. 9T 

mention of the papacy^ or the cardinalship, much less 
were these their doctrines^ their laws, their customs, no, 
nor the empire over the nations that we now obtain. 
But all ministers of all churches (of the Roman no less 
than of others) did voluntarily obey Kings and Princes 
and magistrates."* And a little further on, they say, 
^'certainly we scarce retain in our churches, so much as 
a shadow of the doctrine and discipline which flourished 
in the times of the Apostles, but have brought in another 
quite different from it.^^f These confessions of the Bo- 
nonia Bishops were intended only for the Pope's ear, but 
were afterwards divulged to the world by a distinguish- 
ed Bishop of that church, who was sent a short time be- 
fore by the Pope as his legate to reduce the heretics in 
Germany. J 

V»^8 shall conclude this chapter 'vvith ths following ex- 
tract from a sermon by the Rev. Mr. Fowler of England 
on 1. Thess. v. 27, which represents the opposition of 
the Church of Rome to Christ in a very striking light, 
*'The Lord Jesus Christ commands the people to search 
the scriptures; the Pope commands not. Christ com- 
mands them to search Moses and the Prophets, the old tes- 
tament; the Pope forbids them to search either old or new. 
Christ says, ''in them ye think ye have eternal life;" the 
Pope says there is more danger of eternal death. Christ 
gives this reason, they testify of me; the Pope saith no, 
they are very dark and obscure, very short and defective, 
therefore no competent witness. Christ saith; let my 
word dwell in you richly; the Pope saith no, not dwell, 
not even in your houses. Christ saith teaching and ad- 

•See Consil. de Stabiliend. Rom. Eccles. Vergerii, Tom. 1. 
p. 96. 

flbid p. 97. 

tSee Bp. Stratford's discourse on the necessity of a reforma- 
tion, chap. III. § 1, 



98 THE PROPRIETY OF 

monishing one another; the Pope saith brabling and per- 
verting one another. Christ saith whatever you do 
in word or deed, do it according to my word; the Pope 
saith, do my word, observe our decrees, or else, I will 
burn you. Christ commands, in my text, that this epis- 
tle he readi the Pope commands the contrary. Christ 
saith, to all the brethren*, the Pope saith no, not to any 
lord, duke or prince. (Franciscus Encoenas, a learned 
Spaniard, was near being put to death for presenting the 
new Testament to the Emperor, Charles V.) Christ 
saith, I charge you to read; the Pope saith, I charge you 
not to read. Christ saith, I charge you under my curse; 
the Pope saith, I charge you not to do it under the curse 
of the church. Christ saith I charge you under the pain 
of hell fire; the Pope saith, I charge you do not^ under 
the pain of hell and the stake too. ''"^ 

*See **An antidote against Popery,'* Mr. Fowler's sermon. 



CHAPTER VII. 

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

**For there are raany unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, 
whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, 
teaching those things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's 
sake." Paul, 

As the right to withhold the scriptures from the peo- 
ple is argued from the hifallihility of the Romish 
church, it may be well to bestow on this point a more 
particular and extended examination. It is contended 
that as the church is infallible, she cannot, err in her 
judgment as to the propriety of this measure; and more- 
over, that as she is infallible, her interpretation of scrip- 
ture is to be implicitly relied on; so that her opinions 
and her instructions, ex cathedra^ more than compen- 
sate for the withholding of the word itself; and are a 
safer guide in matters of religion than the Bible can 
possibly be when placed in the hands of all sorts and 
classes of people. It is contended that her infallibility 
secures to all who will confide in her, a greater degree 
of certainty in this all important matter, than can possi- 
bly be obtained when left to the private, though assisted 
judgment of every one who may choose to search the 
scriptures for himself. But does infallibility really ex- 
ist in the church of Rome? The importance of this doc- 
trine to the whole papal system appears from the fact, 
that in every strait and difficulty into which the fair in- 
terpretation of scripture, and the cogency of sound rea- 
soning drive its advocates, they resort to this imposing 
though presumptuous claim to infallibility; and by its 
potent spell they cause all difficulties to disappear.— 



100 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

This is the great bulwark of their whole system, and 
their conclusive answer to every argument urged against 
that system; and it is this claim to such high preroga- 
tive that imparts a superstitious sanction to dogmas the 
most unscriptural, unreasonable and absurd. As then 
it is so important, and indeed essential, to the well be- 
ing of the church which has arrogated this attribute to 
itself, and as the possession of such a prerogative would 
justly demand from us implicit and immediate obe- 
dience, it becomes us to give to this claim a candid hear- 
ing and a close examination. By the infallibility of the 
church of Rome is meant that divine superintendence of 
all its acts and decrees by which it is preserved from the 
possibility of error, or mistake. 

But what, a priori^ staggers our confidence in this 
doctrine is that the very church which claims and de- 
fends it, is yet unsettled as to where this infallibility 
resides. Some contend that it resides in the pope 
alone; others in the council alone; others in the pope 
and council together; and others again, that it resides 
in the diffusive body of Christians.* Now from the 
very nature of the case, it is utterly impossible that this 
question ever should be settled without another revela- 
tion; and not even then, if it required an infallible hu- 
man tribunal to interpret it. But as the church is now 
divided on this point, who is to settle it.^ It must be set- 
tled by an infallible authority, before it can demand an 
implicit belief. Shall the council decide it? the Pope 
answers, no. Shall the Pope decide it? the council an- 
swers, no. Shall both together decide it? If so, the 
question is settled, for if they can pronounce an infalli- 
ble decree, they must be already infallible. Their de- 
cision must be that infallibility resides with the pope and 
council together, for if they decide that it resides in 
* Tillotson's works, vol. i. p. 121. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 101 

either separately, that decision is not infallible by its own 
import, and nothing therefore would be infallibly settled 
by it. 

But some may say, that as such a decision would be 
made up of the opinion of the Pope by himself, of the 
council by itself, and the decree of both together, it can- 
not fail of being infallible; but the answer is, that if the 
decision derives any infallibility from the Pope by him- 
self, or from the council by itself, the question is at once 
settled. The decision then must be that both together 
are alone infallible, otherwise the decree would decree 
its own fcdlibility^ and therefore not settle the question. 
Now before this decree, the Pope and council together 
were not certainly infallible, according to the terms of 
the case; for the object of the decree was to ascertain, 
and settle that certainty. If then this be the case, how 
could they issue a certainly infallible decree? They 
plainly could not: so that the question remains still un- 
settled and must remain so. Now the very fact that it 
is unsettled, where and in whom tliis infallibility resides, 
and that it never can be settled, as we have shown^ 'af- 
fords, a priori^ a strong argument against the claim. 

The question we have just stated, namely, where and 
in whom does infallibility reside, is a question between 
Papists. But tliere is another question equally impossi- 
ble to be decided, which exists between them and us, 
namely, does the infallibility of which Papists speak, 
really exist in the church at all.^ It is plain that neither 
of these questions can ever be infallibly settled, since 
the impossibility of such a decision is involved in the 
questions. 

It is absolutely impossible, therefore, that any church 
should be certainly infallible, while she is the sole judge 
and interpreter of the very charter from which the claim 
is derived; and this accounts for the diversity of opinion 



102 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

among papists themselves on this point. Our meaning 
is this, that so long as any body is the sole organ through 
which alone any interpretation of the scriptures can 
reach the people with a claim to belief, it is impossible 
that that body can make out a fair pretension to infalli- 
bility on the ground of scripture. The thing is demon- 
strably impossible, as we shall hereafter attempt to show. 
There is another difficulty connected with the claim 
to infallibility, which has never yet been fairly and open- 
ly met, and one which we call upon papists to clear up. 
A church that is infallible, must be unchangeable. Now 
the difficulty lies here^ as the doctrine and spirit of the 
church of Rome is unchangeable, they must admit that 
the doctrine and spirit of the church in the dark ages 
(the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries,) is the doctrine 
and spirit of the church now^ and was the doctrine and 
spirit of tlie apostolic church. They must admit that 
what the church now is in Spain and South America, 
and what it ever has been in Italy, is not only the same 
as in the days of the apostles, but also the same as she 
noiu is in this country. Are the advocates of infallibil- 
ity prepared to admit this.^ But we will not stop here: 
An infallible church is bound, and if consistent, is wil- 
ling, to sanction and make herself now responsible for 
all her regularly authorised acts and decrees from the 
earliest periods of her existence to the present time.— • 
They are bound to say that when the council of Con- 
stance condemned to the stake John Huss and Jerome 
of Prague, they did what the apostles would have done in 
similar circumstances^ and what a Romish council would 
now do in similar circumstances: They must make the 
act their own, or else they must condemn it, and say they 
did wrong. Let them publicly and formally condemn that 
act of the council of Constance, and all the decrees of 
condemnation to the stake, of all the councils^ or their 



CHURCH OF ROME. 103 

silence must be construed into a sanction of such con- 
duct, and of the principles which prompted it. Here, 
then, they are in this dilemma; either they must sanc- 
tion and confirm these decrees, or else give up her claim 
to infallibility. Bellarmine, who is of the highest au- 
thority in the church of Rome, says that ' 'heretics 
ought to be exterminated root and branch from the earth; 
but where the number of papists is so small that they can- 
not safely attempt it, there they are to be quiet," and on 
this principle the church has acted. Look at their treat- 
ment of the poor, unoffending and pious Waldenses; 
look at the massacre in Paris in the time of Gregory 13th 
Look at the horrible and bloody persecution which fol- 
lowed the revocation of the Edict of Nantz. Look at the 
Inquisition and all its tortures. Read the narrations of 
Romish cruelty in Limborch's history; narrations that 
chill the blood and sicken the heart of him who can feel 
a pang of sympathy for the sorrows and woes of others.— 
Look at all these, and ask the church to sanction them; 
call upon papists to confirm or condemn them; bring 
them to the point; let the church acknowledge she did 
wrong; let her condemn these transactions, and we will 
no longer make use of them as arguments against her in- 
fallibility, for then none will be needed. Is the church 
prepared now to sanction and mother all the abomina- 
tions, and corruptions, and superstitions, and massacres, 
which she once sanctioned? If so, let her do it; if not, 
where is her infallibility? 

Another objection to the claim of infallibility is derived 
from history. It is that inconsistent doctrines have been 
taught by the same church. They once held doctrines 
which they now disavow; and they now hold doctrines 
which they once did not hold. Papists are artful in con- 
cealing their real doctrines; they are aware that to admit 
that the church was once corrupt or wrong, would be to 



104 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

destroy her infallibility. They therefore evade every 
attack that would bring them out in defence of some of 
their most absurd doctrines. But history teaches us 
that some of their most absurd doctrines were once mere 
matters of opinion and debate. It is plain from history, 
that the church by mdulgences professed to pardon the 
sins of those to whom they were granted, and to save 
them from purgatory. Now they say, that the only ef- 
fect of indulgences is to save from temporal or ecclesias- 
tical punishment. What was it that first excited the 
opposition of Luther, but that indulgences were sold, 
by which the church professed to deliver from purgato- 
ry? The promulgation of these indulgences in Germany 
was committed to Albert, a prelate, who ^t that very 
time, held two archbishoprics, namely, of Mentz and 
of Magdeburg. Albert delegated the office to John Tet- 
zel, a Dominican Inquisitor, who in the year 1517, ap- 
peared in the neighbourhood of Wittemberg, selling in- 
dulgences. * Myconiust assures us, says the historian 
Milner, that he himself heard Tetzel declaim with in- 
credible eftrontery, concerning the unlimited power of 
the Pope, and the efficacy of the indulgences. The 
people believed that the moment any person had paid 
the money for the indulgence, he became certain of his 

* According to a book, called the tax book of the Sacred Ro- 
man Chancery, containing the exact sums demanded for the re- 
mission of sins, we find the following fees. 

s. d. 

ForSimony ...10 6 

Sacrilege * 10 6 

Taking a false oath in a criminal case 9 

Robbing ..12 

Burning a house , 12 

Murdering a layman 7 6 

Laying violent hands on a clergyman. 10 6 

f Frederick Myconius was a writer of that period. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 105 

salvation.* John Tetzel publicly boasted that he had 
saved more souls from hell by his indulgences, than St. 
Peter had converted to Christianity by his preaching*— 
and he assured the purchasers of his indulgences, that 
their crimes, however enormous, would be forgiven.-— 
He has also publicly declared that ''the moment the 
money tinkles in the chest, your father's soul mounts up 
out of purgatory." It does not appear, says Milner, 
that the rulers of the hierarchy ever found the least 
fault with Tetzel as exceeding his commission, till an 
opposition was openly made to the practice of indul- 
gences; whence it is evident that Protestants have not 
unjustly censured the corruptions of the court of Rome 
in this respect, t The following was the usual form of 
absolution, written by TetzePs own hand, viz: "May our 
Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve 
thee by the merits of his most holy passion! And I, by 
his authority, that of his apostles Peter and Paul, and 
of the most holy Pope granted and committed to me in 
these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesi- 
astical censures in whatever manner they have been in- 
curred; and then from all the sins, transgressions, and 
excesses, how enormous soever they may be, even 
from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy 
see: and as far as the keys of the holy church extend, I 
remit to thee all the punishment which thou deservest 
inpurgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the 
holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faith- 
ful, and to that innocence and purity which thou possess- 
ed at baptism, so that when thou diest, the gates of pun- 
ishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of 
delight shall be opened; and if thou shalt not die at pre- 
sent, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art 

* See Milner's Church Hist. vol. iy. p. 217. f Ih. p. 218. 
K 2 



106 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE 



at the point of death. In the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holj Ghost. *''t 

''Burnet informs us,":|: sajs Milner, ''that the scan- 
dalous sale of pardons and indulgences had by no means 
so completely ceased in popish countries as is commonly 
taken for granted. He says, that in Spain and Portu- 
gal there is every where a commissary, wlio manages 
the sale with the most infamous circumstances imagin- 
able. In Spain, the king, by an agreement with the 
Pope, has the profits. In Portugal, the king and the 
Pope go shares. 

"In the year 1709, the privateers of Bristol took a 
galleon, in which they found five hundred bales of bulls" 
for indulgences.. .. "and sixteen reams were in a bale. 
So that they reckon the whole came to 3,840,000.— r. 
These bulls are imposed on the people, and sold, the 
lowest at three rials, a little more than • twenty-pence, 
but to some at about eleven pounds of our money .... 
All are obliged to buy them in Lent." The author 
adds, "Besides the account given of this in the cruis- 
ing voyage, I have a particular attestation of it by cap- 
tain D ampler. §" 

Such efficacy of indulgences is now disclaimed by 
papists, at least in this country. How does this differ- 
ence of sentiment comport with the claim to infallibility? 

History furnishes abundant proof that the Pope has 
claimed and exercised a civil authority over kings and 
kingdoms: that he is to all intents and purposes a tern- 
poral Prince; but this is now denied by many papists. 
The Bishops of Bononia confessed in their advice to Ju- 
lius III. that, "in the time of the apostles, and for some 
years after the apostles, there was no mention of the 
papacy, &c. no, nor the empire over the 7iations which 

* Seckend. p. 14. f Milner's Church Hist. vol. iv. p. 217. 

t Vol. ill. intro. p. 20. § Milner's Gh. Hist. vol. iv. p. 218 



CHURCH OF ROME. 107 

s 

we now obtain.'''^ Whether the official opinion of the 
bishops of Spain to the British parliament was upon the 
general question of the Pope's temporal dominion, or 
whether it related to his temporal dominion over British 
subjects, I am not able to say, not having that opinion 
at hand; the same also in regard to the bishops of Ire- 
land, but it is certain that on this point there is a diver- 
sity of sentiment. 

The nature and extent of the Pope's authority have 
long been matters of debate among the Roman doctors. 
It is strange and unaccountable, if this office and its 
powers are of divine institution, that there should be, 
among those who profess to believe in that divine appoint- 
ment, so much difference of opinion as to their nature and 
extent, and that there should be so little clearly settled 
and unanimously received. It is derogatory to the cha- 
racter of God to suppose that if these institutions of su- 
premacy, power, infallibility, &c. are from him, and 
are of such vital importance to the church as they are 
held to be, he would have permitted them to be lost, 
and to become matters of so much dissension and 
doubt. ''There is," says Almain^ a distinguished di- 
vine, who flourished at the close of the fifteenth and at 
the beginning of the sixteenth century, ''so much con- 
troversy about tl^ plenitude of ecclesiastical power, and 
to what things it may extend itself, that/cz^ things in 
that matter are seciireyf 

The point before us is, and ever has been, a delicate 
one. And it is a point of unspeakable importance, no 
less than of serious delicacy, in a free countiy such as 
ours, where the church is in no way connected with the 
state, and where a union of the two is so much to be 

* See Consil. de Stabiliend. Rom. Eccl. Tom. i. p. 96. 
t Almain de Aust. Eccle. cap. 3. 



108 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

abhorred by every good Christian as well as by every 
sincere friend to his country. 

It is clearly ascertained, that many distinguished di- 
vines of the highest authority and repute in the Romish 
church, have ascribed to the Pope, an universal and ab- 
solute empire of civil as well as ecclesiastical matters. 
*'The first opinion is," says Bellarmine, ''that the Pope 
has by divine authority the fullest power over the whole 
world, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs; thus taught 
Aug. Triumphus, Alvarus Pelagius, Panormitanus, 
Hostiensis, Silvester and many others.''* 

This doctrine Baronius often asserts with great confi- 
dence; ''there can be no doubt of it," says he, "but 
that the civil principality is subject to the sacerdotal, "t 
Again he says, "that God hath made the political go- 
vernment subject to the dominion of the spiritual 
church."! This same Baronius, in another place, tells 
Us that "they are all branded for heretics, who take 
from the church of Rome, and the See of St. Peter, one 
of the two swords, and allow only the spiritual. "|| 

The opinion which Bellarmine gives as the common 
opinion of Roman Catholics, though it does not di- 
rectly and immediately ascribe temporal power to the 
Pope, nevertheless is, that in virtue of his spiritual 

* Prima sententia est, summum Pontificem jure dlvino habere 
plenissimam potestatem in universum orbem terrarum, tarn in 
rebus Ecclesiasiicts quam Civiiibus, Ita docent Aug. Triumphus, 
Alvarus Pelagius, Panormitanus, Hostiensis, Silvester et alii non 
pauci. Bell. lib. v. 1* 

f Politicum principatum sacerdotal! esse subjectum, nulla po- 
test esse dubitatio. An. 57 §23. 

t Politicum imperium subjecit spiritualis Ecclesise dominio. 
lb. §33. 

8 Haeresis errore notantur omnes qui ab Ecclesia Rom. Cathe- 
dra Petri e duobus alterum gladium auferunt, nee nisi spiritu- 
alem concedunt. Baron. Anno. 1053. §14. , 



CHURCH OF ROME. 109 

power, he has supreme power even in temporal matters.* 
Another evidence that the Pope has claimed supreme 
dominion in temporal matters, is, that he has exercised 
it. The bull of Pope Sixtus V. issued in 1585, against 
Henry, king of Navarre, and the prince of Conde, be- 
gins thus: ''The authority given to St. Peter, and his 
successors J &c. excels all the powers of earthly kings 
and princes. * ^ * * * and if it find any of them resisting 
God's ordinance, it takes more severe vengeance of 
them, casting them down fro77i their thrones^^^ 8ic. The 
bull then proceeds; ''we deprive them (Henry and the 
prince of Conde) and their posterity forever of their do- 
minions and kingdoms." The bull then goes on to ab- 
solve their subjects from the oath of allegiance, and from 
all fealty and obedience; and forbids them to obey them 
or any of their admonitions or laws. 

The Bull of Pope Pius Y. issued in 1570, against 
Queen Elizabeth, and which we have already qiioied ir* 
the third chapter, after declaring that there is no salva- 
tion out of the Holy Catholic (Roman) church, and that 
Jesus Christ has constituted the Pope of Rome prince 
over all nations and all kingdoms^ that he might pluck 
t//;, destroy^ dissipate^ ruinate^ plant and build^lpYoceeds 
thus : "He (the Pope) thereby deprives the queen of her 
pretended right to the kingdom, and of all dominion, 
dignity and privilege whatsoever; and absolves all the 
nobles, subjects and people of the kingdom, and who- 
ever else have sworn to her, from their oaths, and all 
duty whatsoever in regard of dominion, fidelity and obe- 
dience." After this bull, the Pope should not object to 

* Tertia sententia media, et Catbolicorum communis, Ponti- 
ficem ut Pontificem non habere directe et immediate ullam tem- 
poralem potestatem, sed solum spirilualem, tamen ratione spirit- 
ualis habere saltern indirect^ potestatem quandam, eamque 
summam in temporalibus. Bell. lib. v. 1. 



110 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

being called, what he has been thus officially styled^ 
neither should papists object to his being so called, viz: 
"Prince over all nations and all kingdoms,^^ 

Pope Clement VI. in the year 1346, attempted to de- 
pose Lewis IV. Pope Clement V. in the great synod 
of Vienna, in 1311, declared the emperor subject to 
him. Boniface VIII. in a decree extant in the canon 
law, declared that *'the temporal authority must be sub- 
ject to the spiritual powers" and it is thus he interprets 
the two swords spoken of in Luke xxii. 38, ''for one 
sword," says he, ''must be under another."* He then 
adds, "whence if the earthly power go astray, it must 
be judged by the spiritual power, "t 

By consulting Barrow's introduction to his ^ 'Treatise 
on the Pope's supremacy," any one will be satisfied by 
the long list of Popes there given, who held and prac- 
ticed this doctrine, that it was^ and if she be infallible, 
i'3 noil* the doctrine of the Romish church. He there 
tells us, and gives his authority, that Boniface VIII. 
openly declared himself to be "king of kings^ monarch 
of the world, and sole lord and governor, both in spirit- 
uals and temporals.'^^ 

Pope Innocent IV. held the same doctrine. Innocent 
III. applied to the Pope the tenth verse of the first 
chapter of Jeremiah. "See, I have this day, set thee 
over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and 
to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to 
build and to plant." This Pope also practised this 
doctrine by deposing the emperor Otho IV. In the 
year 1099, Pope Paschall II. deprived Henry IV. and 

* Oportet gladium esse sub gladio et temporalem authorita- 
tem spirituali subjici potestati. Extrav. Com. lib. i. tit. 8, cap. 1. 

f Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spi-^ 
rituali. Ibid. (See Barrows works, vol. i. p. 540, 541,) 



CHURCH OF ROME* 111 

excited enemies to persecute him.^ Pope Urban IT. 
preached the same doctrine, and recommended it in his 
decrees.! As for Gregory VII. he is honored with 
being called the great apostle^ if not the author of this 
doctrine; he boldly deposed from royalty one of the 
Henry's of England, in virtue of authority delegated by 
Jesus Christ, to take away and give empires and king- 
doms, and whatever mortals can have. Barrow has 
quoted his express words, and given authorities at 
length. J 

The church of Liege, in their answer to the epistle of 
Pope Paschall, says that Pope Hildebrand is the author 
of this doctrine; he and Gregory 11. therefore must 
share the honour. Here we perceive |that part of the 
church at least, did not believe that Jesus Christ was 
tlie author of this doctrine; but that it since became the 
doctrine of the church, has been, I think, clearly shown. 
But there is more evidence still on this point. Leo IX.Ji 
Stephanus V[.§ Pope John VIILH Nicolas I.** and 
Gregory ILtt all held and many of them practised this 
doctrine. 

But I may be told by those who can speak, and affect 
to think, lightly of the opinions of Popes, when it suits 
their purpose, that their opinion and practice in this 
matter, are not to be regarded as the doctrine and prac- 
tice of the church. But what do Romanists call the 
church? Is it a council.^ Is it what the Council of Trent 
has called the church.^ If so, we have ample testimony 
from this source. The great Lateran Council, held un- 

* See Pope Paschall, Ep. 7. f See Pope Urban IL Ep. 12. 
i See his works, vol. i. p. 542. 

\ Pope Leo IX. Ep. i. c. 12. § Stephanus YI. Ep. 1. (Baron. 
Anno, 885. §11.) 
^ Join VIII. £p. 119. ** Pope Nicolas I. Ep. 4. 
tt Baron. Anno, 730. §40. 



112 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

der Innocent III. did ordain that ''if a temporal lord, 
being required and admonished by the church, should ne- 
glect to purge his territory from heretical filth, he should 
by the metropolitan and other comprovincial bishops, be 
noosed in the band of excommunication; and that if he 
should slight to make satisfaction within a year, it 
should be signified to the Pope, that he might from that 
time denounce the subjects absolved from their fealty to 
him, and expose the territory to be seized on by Catho- 
lics.* 

This council, according to the Council of Trent, did 
represent or constitute the church A Here, then, we 
have an official arid formal acknowledgement of this 
doctrine by the church. 

From what has been now said, it clearly appears that 
the church of Rome once held and practiced the doc- 
trine, that the Pope is ''Prince over all nations and all 
kingdoms." If this doctrine is now discarded by the 
church, in what light does her infallibility appear? If 
she was infallible when she held the doctrine, she can- 
not be so now, since she rejects it. Again: If she was 
infallible when she held and practised this doctrine, she 
never could have renounced the doctrine, nor changed 
her practice: but she has done both; therefore she can- 
not be infallible. Is it denied that she has renounced 
her doctrine or changed her practice? Suppose the pre- 
sent Pope should issue exactly such a bull against Wil- 
liam IV. as Pius y. issued against Elizabeth. Suppose 
he should issue such a bull against the President and 
Congress of the United States, as Sixtus V. issued 
against the king of Navarre and the prince, of Conde, 
(and he has the same right to do so in the one case as 

* Cone. Later. Cap. 3. in Decret. Greg. lib. v. tit. 7. C5ip. 13. 

t Neque enim per Lateranense Concilium. Eccksia, Statuit. 
&c. Syn. Trid. Sess. 14. Cap. 5. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 113 

the other, inasmuch as he is ''constituted by Jesus Christ 
prince over all nations,") what would be the conse- 
quence? would it not, in this enlightened day, expose 
the tyranny, the over-reaching claims, the inquisitorial 
character, and the hidden abominations of the church of 
Rome? If this church has not discarded the doctrine and 
changed the practice which we have shown to be once 
hers, how can a Roman Catholic be an American citizen 
at heart? How can he be a sincere friend to the principles 
of our government, which are directly at war with those 
held and practised by the proper successors of Peter, in 
the papal chair? I do not lay to Roman Catholics in 
America, any charge of unfriendly designs against 
their country, but I do s^j thdit the principles of their 
church policy^ as held in all countries, and as avow- 
ed when there was no fear of a successful opposition, 
are at irreconcilable variance with the genius of our re- 
publican institutions. But in this and other countries, 
where this doctrine is unpopular and offensive to the 
spirit and principles of the government, and where 
they have not the power to put it in practice, it is de- 
nied — it is disowned. But this only confirms what 
Bellarmine, their own oracle, has said, that there was a 
sort of heretics skulking in the church who restrain 
the Pope's authority so far as not to allow him any 
power over sovereign princes in temporal affairs^ much 
less any power of depriving them of their kingdoms and 
principalities. "^ Of such Baronius spoke, when he said 
they were "branded for heretics.'^^ Those, therefore, 
who deny that the Pope is a temporal prince, are regard- 
ed as rejecting an important part of the papal system. 
In what light does this ''sort of heretics" view the cha- 
racter and orthodoxy of those Popes and those doctors, 

* See Bell, lib. v. 1. 



1 14 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

who have both held and practised this doctrine ? How 
can they deny but that false and pernicious doctrines 
may creep in, and obtain sway in the church, through 
the interest of the Pope and his adherents? How can 
the concord^ unity and infallibility of the church well 
consist with the denial of this doctrine, so generally held 
and practised through a long succession of Popes? 

The whole church did, for six hundred years, believe 
in and practice the administering the Eucharist to in- 
fants. This was the practice of the whole church in the 
time of Augustine, and was esteemed by that father as 
an apostolic tradition."^ Now the church, in this country 
at least, holds no such doctrine and has no such practice. 
So also the doctrine of the Millenaries, which was (as 
the name imports) that Christ would reign personally 
1,000 years. This doctrine was held by the church un- 
contradicted until the time of Dionysius Alexandrinus, 
who flourished about the middle of the third century. 
Papists do not hold this doctrine noWy though some mo- 
dern protestants are endeavoring to revive it. 

The doctrine of Tran substantiation was not always a 
doctrine of the Romish church. Before the Lateran 
council in 1215, it was a mere matter of opinion and de- 
bate.! It has been admitted by some papists that it was 
settled by a council held in Rome in 1050, against Beren- 
garius who had impugned the doctrine. But it matters 
not at what particular time it was a matter of opinion; 
that it was so, at least before the last mentioned council is 
abundantly evident from the testimony of writers, who 
flourished previous to that time. But the very fact of con- 
vening a council to settle the point against Berengarius, 
shows that it was then unsettled. This doctrine is held 

♦Chillingworth ch. 3 § 42. 

fSee the second subdivision under the first head of Tillotson's 
sermon on transubstantiation appended to this work. 



CHURtJH OF ROME 115 

in the creed of Pope Pius IV, to be a doctrine, without 
belief in which, there is no salvation. Then how does 
the infallibility of the church appear in permitting a fun- 
damental doctrine, without which there could be no sal- 
vation, to be unsettled as a point of faith for so long a 
time? for it was not established as a doctrine of the church 
till the council in 1215. Before this time they must have 
admitted those to her communion, who at the same time 
disbelieved in what is now a fundamental doctrine of that 
church: Yea, their doctors in the bosom of the church 
denied or doubted it, and were not excommunicated: and 
why? Because it was not then considered a matter of 
faith, without which salvation was impossible. Let her 
doctors now use the same language and express the same 
doubts concerning this doctrine, as did those who lived 
before the council of 1050, and the change of sentiment 
in the church on this head would soon appear by their 
excommunication. What is here said of Transubstan- 
tiation is equally true of some other points of their 
doctrine. 

It has been denied by papists, and I suppose would now 
be denied by all papists in this country, that their church 
holds the doctrine that faith may be broken with here- 
tics; i. e. all who differ from them in religious opinions. 
But this doctrine is as clearly taught by the council of 
Constance as language could make it. The decree of 
that council on this point is this: that ' 'concerning every 
safe conduct granted by the Emperor, Kings and other 
temporal princes to heretics or persons accused of here- 
sy, in hopes of reclaiming them, that it is not to be of any 
prejudice to the Catholic faith, or Ecclesiastical juris^ 
diction; not to hinder but that such persons may and 
ought to be examined, judged and punished according 
as justice shall require. If those heretics shall refuse 



116 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

to revoke their errors, although they shall have come to 
the place of judgment, relying on their safe conduct, 
and without which they would not have come hither, 
the persons who have promised them security, shall not 
in this case be obliged to keep his promise^ by whatsoever- 
tie he may have been engaged when he has done all that 
is in his power to do. " The cas&of John Huss is an ex- 
ample of this, in which case the council acted upon this 
very principle, w^hich they have so plainly set forth in 
the above decree: Huss was required to appear before 
the council on the charge of heresy. The Emperor Se- 
gismund promised to protect him there and back again, 
and when Huss was condemned, the Emperor told the 
council that he had pledged his faith for protection to 
him. The reply of the council was that he had nothing 
more to do with Huss, he had done all for him that was 
in his powers and the unfortunate Huss was actually 
burnt. This was done too by order of the council, 
and not of the Emperor, for he had nothing more to do 
with him. This was establishing another doctrine which 
the Romish church in this country will deny to be theirs; 
namely, that the church has the right to inflict corporeal 
punishment for heresy. 

This decree of the council has never been repealed, 
and never can be, and must therefore, if the church be 
infallible, 720W and ever be the doctrine of that church. 
Are the papists in this country prepared to come forth 
and defend this decree, and the conduct of the council? 
If they are, let them do it; for we now charge it upon 
them as their doctrine, though they dare not avow it, 
where in the midst of an enlightened people the church 
is unconnected with the State. And we do also assail 
the conduct of that council in the affair of Huss and Je- 
rome of Prague. Let them defend it, or surrender their 
claim to infallibility. 



CHURCH OF ROME 117 

We charge the church of Rome with holding the wor- 
ship of images; that is, they worship images in the same 
way that the heathen do. They contend that they do 
not worship the image, but the deity represented by it. 
But this is in fact worshipping the image. In the Romish 
Catechism, authorized by the council of Trent, is the 
following passage. ' ' The images of Saints are put in 
churches, as well that they may be worshipped^ as that 
we, being admonished by their example, might conform 
ourselves to their life and manners. " Thomas Aquinas, 
tlie angelic doctor, says that ''the same worship is to be 
rendered to the image as is due to the being represent- 
ed." The decree of the council of Trent on this point, a 
council whose decrees and acts every priest on his in- 
duction into the holy office promises to approve and de- 
fend; the decree of this council is this, ''That the images 
of Christ and the blessed Virgin, Mother of God, and 
other Saints, are to be kept and reserved especially in 
churches, and due honor and veneration to be given to 
them: not for that any divinity or virtue is believed to be 
in them for which they are to be worshipped, but because 
the honor which is exhibited in images is referred to the 
prototype or thing represented by them, so that by the 
image which we kiss^ and before which we kneel, or put 
oft our hats, we adore Christ and reverence his saints. '^ 
Now the worship here described, is precisely the same 
as that which heathen pay to ther idols. They worship 
not the wood or stone, but the numen (the deity) sup- 
posed to dwell in the idol. Moreover to kiss and kneel 
before any thing is expressive of worship, and is so used 
in scripture. In the 72d Psalm, speaking of God, it is 
written "yea all kings shall fall down before him;" in 
the 95th Psalm, it is written **0 come and let us worship 
and bow down and kneel before the Lord our maker." 
We also read ofthe 7,000 who had not bowed the knee 



118 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

to Baal. In the 2d Psalm, we are told to kiss the son, 
lest he be angry: and speaking of the 7,000 jiust mention- 
ed, it is written ''and every mouth which hath not kissed 
them," and many other passages which show that such 
reverence amounts to w^orship, and is therefore forbidden 
by the second commandment. The church in this coun- 
try now disclaims the actual worship of images. How 
all these changes in doctrine and practice can be recon- 
ciled with the infallibility of the church, I leave its ad- 
vocates to find out. 

Another source of argument against the claim to in- 
fallibility is, the opposite and contradictory decrees of 
councils and popes. For instance, the Council of Flo- 
rence, under Pope Eugene, ascribed infallibility to the 
pope, in opposition to the Council of Basil. The de- 
cision of the Council of Florence w as by its own import 
not infallible, but if it was sanctioned by tlie pope, and 
no doubt it was, as such a decision would be to his ad- 
vantage, then it became infallible. But the Council of 
Basil had decreed that infallibility did not reside in the 
pope. Who then was to settle the question ? Why, 
the very nature of the case precludes the possibility of 
its ever being settled, as we have before shown. It is, 
therefore, a matter of debate to this day. 

The Council of Constantinople, convoked in 754, 
unanimously decreed the rem.oval of images, and the 
abolition of image worship,-^ (and this, by the way, shows 
that it did exist. ) But the second Council of Nice, con- 
voked in 787, decreed the re -establishment of image 
worship, and anathematized all who had concurred in 
its abolition. Several other councils after this, were 
alternately decreeing and condemning image worship, t 
To get rid of this difficulty, the papists say that the in- 

* Fab. difF. Rom. 41. f Ibid. note. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 119 

fallibility of their church is not shaken, unless it can be 
shown that two general councils, and their respective 
popes, decreed opposite and contradictory things. Now, 
as to the second Council of Nice, it is admitted that the 
Pope concurred in its decisions, and as to the Council 
of Constantinople, if the then reigning Pope did not con- 
cur, yet the sentiment agrees with one of his predeces- 
sors, and surely the oflSce being one and the same^ that 
circumstance can make no difference. Pope Gregory the 
Great says, ''Gmne manufactum adorari non/zce^; ado- 
rari imagines, omnibus modis veta.^^"^ Now here is cer- 
tainly the decree of a council, agreeing with and con- 
curring in that of a pope, condemning image worship. 
And if this concurrence be not such as to make the 
decree valid, it must be admitted that the mere fact of 
Gregory living at the beginning of the seventh century, 
instead of the middle of the eighth, makes all the vast 
difference between an infallible and a nugatory decree. 
But before the advocates of infallibility can thus uncere- 
moniously nullify the decrees of general councils, where 
the pope did not concur, they must first demonstrate 
that the pope has, jure divino, a veto upon all such de- 
crees. This, we know, is denied by some of the Romish 
writers; for, as we have before observed, it is a matter 
of dispute to this day, w^hether or not a general council 
is not of itself infallible in its decrees. It is plain then, 
that this question must be first settled, before the ob- 
jection can be fairly made tliat no two councils, with 
their popes concurring, have decreed opposite and con- 
tradictory things. For if this objection be true, let them 
produce the infallible decree or decision by which it is 
made so: for if it has ever been decided that the only 
infallible decree is that of a general council, with the 

* Greg.Magn. Epist. Lib. xi., Ep. 15, aliter 9. 



120 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

pope concurring, let them produce tliat decision; and 
when they produce such a decision, we have another 
question ready for them, which is, if the great question 
as to where the infallibility resides, has been thus infaU 
libly settled^ how does it come that there is so much di- 
versity of opinion in the church on that point ? Is it at 
all likely, if this had always been a settled point of faith, 
that the Council of Florence, under Pope Eugene, would 
have decreed that the pope alone was infallible ? 

We remarked in the former part of this discussion, 
thut it .was demonstrably impossible for the Romish 
Church to make out her claim to infallibility from the 
Scriptures. When the church is asked, how is it known 
that you are infallible ? her reply is, the Scriptures say 
so: but how am I to know that your interpretation of 
Scripture is correct, seeing there are so many learn- 
ed and good men of quite a different opinion ? The an- 
swer is, that the interpretation of the church is infallible. 
Here tlien we see the Scriptures prove the church, and 
the church proves the meaning of the Scriptures; which 
is reasoning in a circle. So also when they are asked, 
how do you know infallibly that the Scriptures are from 
God ? They reply, that the infallible church says so; 
which is the circle again. This circle argument is an 
old one, but it is none the worse for that: for if it 
has stood so long unanswered, it has a far better claim 
to infallibility than the Romish Church. The only way 
in which most of the Romish writers attempt to answer 
this argument, is to throw it upon private reason, and 
then stand upon the broad ground of Deism. A learned 
Arch-bishop of our own country,* however, attempts to 
answer it in another way; but in getting out of one cir- 

* Archbishop Carroll's Address to Rom. Cath. in America, p. 
45. 46. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 1£1 

tie he falls into another. His argument is, that the 
Catholic church has ever, from the days of the Apostles 
down to the present time, decided on matters of contro- 
versy, and exercised the right of excommunicating; and 
the exercise of such prerogative, unless the church was 
infallible, would be vain and nugatory: therefore, the 
church is infallible I ! Now, in the first place, the learned 
Archbishop very illogically argues from matter of fact 
to matter of right; that because the church did so and 
so, therefore she had the right to do it. But, in the next 
place, even this does not mend the matter, for he proves 
she is infallible because. she always exercised the right 
of deciding controversies and excommunicating; and 
then turns about and proves that she possessed that right 
because she is infallible; ''for," says he, '' the exercise 
of such prerogative, without she was infallible, would 
be vain and nugatory." He then triumphantly, though 
I think \^r J unseasonably^ asks, ''where now is the 
circle of false reasoning .^" Had I been at his elbow, I 
might have replied, "there it is* just warm from your 
own pen. " He then boastingly adds, "Is not infallibility 
first demonstrated from other considerations, before it 
is demonstrated from scripture V^ Here then we see, 
that in supporting this claim, the ground of scripture is 
entirely abandoned. The claim must be first established 
irom. other considerations before scripture is resorted to: 
Scripture is but secondary evidence, and may be cited 
merely to confirm other testimony ! Now then, w^e see 
how it is they^get out of the circle: they break through 
and plunge into another. We charge them with prov- 
ing infallibility from scripture, and scripture from in- 
fallibility. But they say, no: we do not prove infalli- 
bility from scripture, but "from otlier considerations," 
after which we infallibly pronounce on scripture; then, 
and not till then, is it infallible proof of our infallibility. 



122 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

Such reasoning as this, shows that they have been whirled 
round in this circle till their heads have become dizzy. 

It is plain that we can have no other infallible proof, 
that the Church of Rome is infallible, but her own word; 
for she allows of no other infallible judge. Now this 
involves the absurdity of believing and disbelieving the 
same thing at the same time; for unless we beforehand 
believe the church to be infallible, her saying so is no 
infallible proof that it is so: and yet the very demand 
for proof shows that we doubt or disbelieve it. That is, 
when we ask the Church of Rome if she is infallible, it 
supposes, first, we are certain of her infallibility, else 
her word would be no proof. It supposes, secondly, "that 
we are uncertain of her infallibility, else we would not 
ask the question. It is like proving to a man who de- 
nies all revelation, that the scriptures are inspired; b>' 
citing the text, ''all scripture is given by inspiration of 
God,'' &c. It is plainly absurd then, to appeal to the 
Church of Rome for proof of her own infallibility; and 
to appeal to the scriptures, is to reason in a circle, as we 
have shown. And what source of proof then is left r 
Why, to use the language of one of their writers above 
quoted, they must resort to ''other considerations," and 
among these is tradition. But, what other proof have 
we that these traditions are from God, than that which 
the infallible church herself affords ^ Certainly none 
other, and, consequently, we are in the circle again: 
the church proves tradition, and tradition in turn proves 
the church. 

To avoid this "vicious circle," Bellarmine, and those 
who follow him in his argument, admit that they do 
not prove the church's infallibility from scripture; but 
from motives to credibility, and from plausible reasons 
why men should believe it. Now, if tliis be the case, is 
not the sanction of infallibility a mere phantom .^ Their 



CHURCH OF ROME. 1£3 

interpretation of scripture is given to the world with all 
tlie imposing sanction of infallibility, while that infalli- 
bility rests upon mere '' motives to credibility," accord- 
ing to their own showing. Is there a magic influence in 
the intervening pretence to infallibility, that renders all 
on one side sure and certain, while all on the other side is 
doubt, or at best but plausibility.^ If the foundation be in 
ruins and tottering, what intervening materials, resting 
upon that foundation, have such a potent spell as to render 
all the superstructure perfectly secure ? Surely the idea 
is absurd. Our meaning is this : The church without in- 
fallibility, is not certainly correct in her interpretation 
of scripture. She, therefore, looks round for something 
on which to rest a claim to infallibility. The scriptures 
furnish no such ground; tradition does not; her own word 
carries no proof; at length she rests her claim upon mere 
motives to credibility^ and plausible reasons why it should 
be believed. On this she rests her claim to infallibility. 
The foundation is admitted to be but plausible, but she 
is notwithstanding, now able to interpret with infallible 
certainty. Now we ask, what is there in this claim 
which makes her interpretations, after it is set up, cer- 
tainly correct^ while the foundation of the claim is un- 
certain^ and only plausible .^ Is this the "demonstra- 
tion of her infallibility from other considerations ?" 
'* Credat Appella, non ego!" 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME 
CONTINUED. 

"Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift, is like clouds and wind 
without rain." Solomon, 

The great and popular argument of the papists in fa- 
vor of the claim to infallibility is derived from the great 
diversity of sentiment among protestants. There is, 
say they, no certainty in their religion. I suppose it 
will be admitted that there is as much real difference 
of opinion between papists and protestants, as there is 
between protestants themselves. It will also be admit- 
ted by papists, that when a man becomes a papist, he 
does it through conviction of the truths which always im- 
plies a previous exercise of reason and judgment, (neither 
of which, by the way, is he afterwards permitted to ex- 
ercise.) If then these two points be admitted, we at 
once see that the diversity of opinion concerning scrip- 
ture truth, is between two who are equally entitled to 
the exercise of their own reason and judgment^ or at 
least it is so with the protestant, whom we now sup- 
pose to be inquiring after truth on this subject. For if 
the poor protestant is not allowed the exercise of his 
reason and judgment, how is he to become a papist upon 
the ground of rational conviction.^ And what prose- 
lyte will admit that he became one on any other? 
Here, then, are two parties of opposite opinions, 
and both equally entitled to the free exercise of reason 
and judgment. Now, notwithstanding this diversity, 
the truth either can, or can not, be known. If it can 



CHURCH OF ROME. 125 

be known, then diversity of opinion is no argument 
against the possibility of knowing it: and if so, seeing 
the diversity is equal, that is, it is as great between the 
papist and the protestant as between the protestant and 
papist, how is it more impossible for the protestant to 
know the truth, than the papist? and how does diversity 
between protestants prevent any of their denominations 
from knowing the truth, and yet the diversity between 
protestants and papists does not prevent the papist from 
knowing it? If the truth can not be known where there 
is such great diversity, then how does the papist know 
it, since he diflfers from those who, he admits, have an 
equal right with himself to their reason and judgment? 
How does it come that he is so sure of his infallibility, 
seeing he professes to derive his knowledge from the very 
scriptures, concerning which the diversity in question 
exists? As then all the rest of Christendom deny that 
the church of Rome is infallible, and since tliey have an 
equal right to their own judgment, who is to decide 
which is correct? If there be a judge, of whose infalli- 
bility I am infallibly certain, I will yield to his decisions : 
but when his infallibility is the subject matter to be de- 
termined, I must appeal to some other authority. And 
if we differ as to what that authority speaks on the point, 
I am not bound to yield to his claim to infallibility in 
interpreting it, for that is the thing to be proved. And 
the very fact of his appealing to authority, concedes to 
me the use of my reason and judgment in forming an 
opinion, and implies the right of refusing to submit un- 
less convinced. Now here is diversity of opinion for 
which I surely cannot be censured, since I was under 
no obligation to yield consent unless convinced. 

If, then, diversity of sentiment is an argument against 
the certainty of a thing, of which I cannot be infallibly 
assured, this is demonstration against the certainty of 

M 



126 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

infallibility. We have already shown that it would in- 
volve an absurdity to appeal to the church herself for 
infallible proof: To what then shall we appeal but to the 
scriptures? And if we appeal to this tribunal, I must 
have the privilege of exercising my own judgment and 
skill in interpreting scripture, else I should have no ad- 
vantage by the appeal. Now in this appeal, the infalli- 
bility of the church must not give any kind of character 
or sanction to her interpretation till it be proved to ex- 
ist, for otherwise it would be taking for granted the very 
point in debate; for I never would admit the sanction of 
infallibility, till I had certain proof of its existence. And 
this certain or infallible proof is the very thing we are 
now in quest of. Their great argument, therefore, de- 
rived from diversity among protestants destroys their 
own cause. For we can be at least as certain of the 
meaning of scripture, as they are that their church is in- 
fallible; for the proof is just as infallible in the one case 
as the other, and no more. And if diversity is proof 
against the certainty of our knowledge of scripture truth, 
it is equally so against the certainty of their infallibility : 
for before the certainty of infallibility is established, 
being all equally entitled to our reason and judgment, 
we are all upon an equal footing, and so long as the proof 
of infallibility is not certain and convincing, so long does 
diversity of opinion operate against its advocates as much 
as against protestants; and that the proof is uncertain is 
admitted by their great oracle Bellarmine, as we have 
before mentioned. 

Papists boast much of the unity of their church, and 
urge it as a strong argument in favor of her infallibility. 
We have already shown that diversity of sentiment 
among protestants does not help their cause; now let us 
examine their claim to unity of sentiment; and in the 
first place, is it a fact that such unity really exists.^ We 



CHURCH OF ROME. 127 

venture to affirm and pledge ourselves to prove that it 
does not. We have already shown that there are at 
lesLstfour different opinions among them with regard to 
the seat of their imagined infallibility. Let it be re- 
membered that this church claims to be unchangeably 
the same from the days of the apostles down to the pre- 
sent time, and that this unity of sentiment and doctrine 
has ever existed in her bosom. Now let any one look 
at' the history even of the first and second centuries of 
the church; let him look at the various sects which arose 
during that period, and on down the third, fourth and 
fifth centuries, and he will find the church continually 
rent with heresies and schisms: even the fathers -of the 
church differing among themselves on many points. We 
have before seen that the church once held doctrines 
that she now rejects, and what were once but mere mat- 
ters of opinion are now fundamentaL doctrines. Let any 
one take this view of the early history of the church, and 
then tell wherein consists the unity of the church '^ then 
let him look at the church after the rise of the papal 
beast; let him look at the various sects that arose in her 
bosom; there we find the Franciscans maintaining that 
Mary was born immaculate; the Dominicans, on the 
conti'ary, maintaining that she was born in original sin, 
but that its effects were soon removed. We next find 
the Jesuits differing from the Dominicans on the subject 
of free will, the former holding to conditional, the latter 
to unconditional decrees. We then find the Jesuits 
differing from the Jansenists on the extent of the power 
and jurisdiction of the Pope, the one holding to his in- 
fallibility, the other denying it. We next find the or- 
der of Jesuits banished by a solemn bull of the Pope, 
and reprobated as the most pestiferous sect in society, 
and then again revived and encouraged by another 
solemn bull of the Pope. We have already noticed the 



1£8 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

discrepancy in the decrees of councils^ and to notice the 
discrepancy among Romish writers, and even among 
Popes themselves, would be an endless task; and yet 
this is the church of which unity is said to be her dis- 
tinguishing characteristic ! Much stress is laid on the 
imagined agreement between the church of Rome at the 
present day with the ancient fathers, as proof of that 
unity of sentiment which they contend has ever existed 
in that church; but a reference to the opinions of the 
early fathers, and even of some of the Popes, as they 
have since been misnamed, will convince any one that 
no such agreement really exists. '^Though the writings 
of those fathers," says Calvin, ''contain many wise and 
excellent things, yet in some respects they have suffered 
the common fate of mankind; their very dutiful children 
(papists) reverence only their errors and mistakes, but 
their excellencies they either overlook, or conceal, or 
corrupt; so that it may be truly said, to be their only 
study to collect dross from the midst of gold: Then they 
overwhelm us with senseless clamours as despisers and 
enemies of the fathers."* 

There was on many points, much disagreement as we 
have before seen, between the fathers themselves; let 
us now see if there be any less between them and the 
church of Rome at the present day; and I cannot better 
exhibit this discrepancy than by giving the following ex- 
tract from the distinguished reformer just quoted, with 
his authorities. ''There were two fathers, "t says Cal- 
vin, "of whom one said, that our God neither eats nor 
drinks, and therefore needs neither cups nor dishes; the 
other, that sacred things require no gold, and that gold 
is no recommendation of that which is not purchased 
with gold. This landmark therefore is transgressed by 

* Calv. Inst. ded. p. 16. f Acat. in lib. 2. cap. 16. Trip. 

Hist. Arab, lib, % de Off. c. 28. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 129 

those who 'in sacred things are so much delighted with 
gold, silver, ivory, jewels, muslins and silks; and sup- 
pose that God is not rightly worshipped, unless all these 
things abound in exquisite splendour, or rather extrava- 
gant profusion. There was a father* who said he freely 
partook of flesh on a day when others abstained from it, 
because he was a Christian. They transgress the land- 
marks therefore when they curse the soul that tastes 
flesh in Lent. There were two fathers,! of whom one 
said, that a monk who labours not with his hands is on a 
level with a cheat or a robber; and the other that it is 
unlawful for monks to live on what is not their own, 
notwithstanding their assiduity in contemplations, stu- 
dies, and prayers; and they have transgressed this land- 
mark by placing the idle and distended carcases of 
monks in cells and brothels, to be pampered on the sub- 
stance of others. There was a fatheri who said, that to 
see a painted image of Christ, or of any saint, in the 
temples of Christians, is a dreadful abomination. JN'or 
was this merely the sentence of an individual; it was 
also decreed by an ecclesiastical council, that the object 
of worship should not be painted on the walls. They 
are far from confining themselves within these landmarks, 
for every corner is filled with images. Another fatherfj 
has advised that after having discharged the office of 
humanity towards the dead by the rights of sepulture, 
we should leave them to their repose. They break 
through these landmarks by inculcating a constant soli* 
citude for the dead. There was one of the fathers§ who 
asserted that the substance of bread and wine in the 

* Spiridion. Trip. Hist, lib.l. c, 10. 

t Trip. Hist. lib. 8. c. 1. August, de OpereMon. c. 17. 

t Epiph. Epist. ab. Hier. vers. Con. Eliber. c. 36> 

fl Amb. lib. de Abra. 1. c. 7. 

§ Gelas. Pap. in Conc« Rom. 

M £ 



ISO INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

eucharist ceases not, but remains, just as the substance 
of the human nature remains in the Lord Christ united 
with the divine. They transgress this landmark there- 
fore by pretending, that on the words of the Lord being 
recited, the substance of bread and wine ceases, and is 
transubstantiated into his body and blood. There were 
two fathers,* of whom one contended that the use of 
Christ's sacred supper should be wholly forbidden to 
those who, content with partaking of one kind, abstained 
from the other; the other strenuously maintained that 
Christian people ought not to be refused the blood of 
their Lord, for the confession of whom they are required 
to shed their own. These landmarks also they have re- 
moved, in appointing, by an inviolable law, that very 
thing which the former punished with excommunication, 
and the latter gave a powerful reason for disapproving. 
There was a fathert who asserted the temerity of decid- 
ing on either side of an obscure subject, without clear 
and evident testimonies of scripture. This landmark 
they forgot wlien they made so many constitutions, 
canons, and judicial determinations, without any autho- 
rity from the word of God. There was a father^ who 
upbraided Montanus with having, among other heresies, 
been the first imposer of laws for the observance of fasts. 
They have gone far beyond this landmark also, in es- 
tablishing fasts by the strictest laws. There was a fa- 
therll who denied that marriage ought to be forbidden to 
the ministers of the church, and declared that in such a 
marriage there was nothing unbecoming; and there were 
other fathers who assented to his judgment. They have 

• Geles. can. Comperimus de Cons. dist. 2. Cypr. Epist. 2. lib. 
1 de Laps. 

f August, lib. 2. de Pec. Mer. cap. ult. 

t ApoUon. dequo Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 11, 12. 

{ Paphnut. Trip. Hist, lib. 2. c. 14, 12. Cypr. Epist. 2. 1.2. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 131 

transgressed these landmarks bv enjoining on their 
priests the strictest celibacy. There was a father who 
thought that attention should be paid to Christ only, of 
whom it is said, ''Hear ye him," and that no regard 
should be had to what others before us have either said 
or done, only to what has been commanded by Christ 
who is pre-eminent over all. This landmark they neither 
prescribe to themselves, nor permit to be observed by 
others, when they set up over themselves and others any 
masters rather than Christ. There was a father* who 
contended that the church ought not to take the prece- 
dence of Christ, because his judgment is always accord- 
ing to truth, but ecclesiastical judges, like other men, 
may generally be deceived. Breaking down this land- 
mark also, they scruple not to assert, that all the au- 
thority of the scripture depends on the decision of the 
church. All the fathers with one heart and voice have 
declared it execrable and detestable for the holy word 
of God to be contaminated with the subtleties of sophists, 
and perplexed by the wrangles of logicians. Do they 
confine themselves within these landmarks, w^hen the 
whole business of their lives is to involve the simplicity 
of the scriptures in endless controversies, and worse than 
sophistical wrangles? So that if the fathers were now 
restored to life, and heard this act of wrangling, which 
they call speculative divinity, they would not suspect 
the dispute to have the least reference to God. But if 
I would enumerate all the instances in which the author- 
ity of the fathers is insolently rejected by those who 
would be thought their dutiful children, my address 
would exceed all reasonable bounds. "t Will any now deny 
that there is at least as much unity among protestants as 
among papists? All protestants are as unanimous in op- 
posing popery as papists are in maintaining it All pro- 
* Aug. cap. 2. contr. Creso. Gram, f Calv. Inst. ded. p. 17. 



132 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

testants are one in this respect, and it is only in this 
respect that papists are one. Look at the various de- 
nominations of protestants, and you will find, at least, 
as much unity among each one of them as among the 
papists. There is as much unity among Presbyterians 
as among papists. A Presbyterian might well say to a 
papist, ''we are no more of your mind than you are of 
ours, notwithstanding all your infallibility." 

It is only when the papist views all protestant Chris- 
tendom as one denomination, that he can say with any 
truth that there is such a vast diversity of doctrine among 
them. But what right has the papist thus to view pro- 
testant Christendom? We as Presbyterians disclaim all 
connexion equally with the Unitarian as with the Romish 
denomination. We view ourselves as perfectly distinct 
from them as the papists view themselves from us. So 
also with regard to all other denominations: As a de- 
nomination, we conceive that we are no more chargea- 
ble with their heresies and differences in doctrine, than 
the church of Rome is: not a whit more. As a denomi- 
nation, we are perfectly distinct from all others, but not 
so far separated from some as from others. With equal 
propriety, the Presbyterian church might set up a claim 
to Unity ^ and found that claim upon the great diversity 
of sentiment and doctrine existing among all those who 
differ from them, not excepting the church of Rome. She 
might, as the church of Rome does, view all who differ 
from her as one denomination, and then charge home 
upon them the great diversity that exists among them. 
She might point to herself as an example of Unity ^ and 
cry down the Papists, the Baptists, the Methodists, 
Unitarians, &c. not only because they differ from her, 
but even from one another. I say tlie Presbyterian 
church might do this with the same propriety as the 
->^nrr-h of Rome does, unless we take for granted the 



CHURCH OF ROME. 133 

very point in the whole dispute, namely, that theRomish 
church is the same as the apostolic church; that she has 
never changed, and is now the only true church. But 
who does not see that this would be giving up the whole 
cause we have undertaken to defend? We believe that 
we come nearer in character to the apostolic church than 
all others, the Baptists believe that they do, so also the 
Methodists, Episcopalians, &c. &c. It is futile, there- 
fore, to urge the claim to Unity as an argument for in- 
fallibility. 

We have hitherto argued upon the supposition that 
each protestant denomination is, at least y as unanimous 
in sentiment as the Homish denomination. But the fact 
is, this latter denomination is the least so of any other. 
One says, I am of Benedict; another, I am of Dominick; 
another, I am of Francis; another, I am of Jesus, &c. 
Look into their writings and see how they condemn, 
abuse and vilify one another; from their own account, 
one would think they were the greatest villains in crea- 
tion. Look, too, at the different orders of mendicants; 
see them on a begging expedition, how they would quar- 
rel and fight like so many savages. 

Turn your attention to the popes also, see how uncere- 
moniously they have set aside each other's solemn de- 
crees; At one time, there were four popes, all presiding 
at once over jjapal unity excommunicating and anathe- 
matizing each other, and thundering their bulls at each 
other's heads. Philip, King of France, provoked^by the 
haughty and overbearing demeanour of Boniface VIII. 
who, in the fourteenth century, stood on that proud and 
guilty eminence of absolute spiritual and temporal do- 
minion, which had been the desire of almost every Pon- 
tiff, hurled him from Ms seat, and placed a Frenchman 
in the Papal see, and fixed his residence at Avignon in 
France; this remained the seat of the Papacy for seven- 



134 ' INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

ty years, a period called by Papists the Babylonish Cap- 
tivity. The Romans, however, wishing to have the 
Pope to reside at Rome, elected one in opposition to the 
Pope at Avignon. Europe became divided and distracted. 
For fifty years the church had two^ sometimes three^ and 
at one time, as we have mentioned, /owr Popes, who did 
little else than hurl anathemas at each other. Besides, 
when these four popes were in authority, how was it 
determined who was the true successor of Peter and 
the vicar of Christ.^ Surely, only by the strong arm 
of power, and by the success of cunning, intrigue and 
deception. Only one of these popes could have been 
the true vicar of Christ, and if so, all the appointments 
and ordinations of the other three were of no validity, 
and the spiritual functions of all their successors down 
to the present day are of no better authority; how 
then, we ask, are those priests and bishops and car- 
dinals of the false line to be distinguished from those 
• of the true line.^ May not the present pope be of the 
false line.^ Can the contrary be demonstrated.^ Where 
now is the boasted unity of the Romish Church.^ It has 
becR truly remarked, that ''Papists are more indebted 
to the INQUISITION for their Unity than to their infalli- 
bility." 

Since the council of Trent, it is taught in all Romish 
churches, that a council can decree nothing, without the 
assent of the pope; that he alone has the right to interpret 
the council and explain its decisions, and that those 
tenets only are of faith, which he determines to be so: 
Thus it is evident that infallibility rests ultimately with 
the pope. The council declares the meaning of some 
passage in scripture, or of some point of tradition, and 
then the pope pronounces infallibly upon the sense of this 
declaration. (Vide Dr. Wharton's Letter to the Rom. 
Cath. at Worcester, p. 26, note. ) Contrast with this a 



CHURCH OF ROME 135 

single instance of the pope's infallibility. Sextus V« 
when he ascended the papal chair, found the scriptures 
to be in such a state of corruption, that he declared them 
to be any thing but the scriptures, and he set to work 
with his learned doctors and cardinals to prepare a cor- 
rect edition, and after much labor it was published, and he 
issued a bull against all who should alter it in the smal- 
lest particle. It remained unaltered for some time, but 
Clement VIII. said there were two thousand principal 
errors with many smaller ones; he therefore condemned 
it, and published the present Clementine Edition. So 
much for the infallibility of popes, whose province it is 
to declare infallibly on the decisions of councils. 

Let us now for a moment examine some of the scrip- 
ture texts on which the claim to infallibility rests. Al- 
though we have shown that the nature of the case pre- 
cludes the possibility of proving it from scripture, yet, 
gratia argumenti^ let us admit the possibility, and see if 
the claim could actually be made out. The Romanists 
adduce this text; **^If ye love me keep my command- 
ments, and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you 
another comforter (or paraclete) that he may abide with 
you forever, even the spirit of truth whom the world 
cannot receive. " John xiv, 15, 16. Now it is plain to com- 
mon sense that this promise is not made to those who are 
worldly minded, and who keep not the commandments of 
God, but to converted and holy men. Now in the first 
place, as no man can judge the heart, it therefore can 
not be certain to what individual it is made, but in the 
next place, knowing them by their fruits, it is certain that 
this promise never was made to the one-twentieth of the 
popes, nor to a greater number of those, who have, from 
time to time, composed the councils of the Romish 
Church; for authentic history informs us, that most of 
the bishops while on their journey to the place where 



136 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

a council was to be held, were openly attended by 
prostitutes ! Surely, such are not the persons to whom 
that spirit which the world cannot receive^ is promised 
on the condition that they keep the commandments of 
Godi 

Another text quoted, is the implied injunction to hear 
the church;* but that injunction has no more to do with 
the infallibility of the church than it has to do with pur- 
gatory; (and not half as much, for if there be a purgato- 
ry, it is being cast out of the church, and given over to 
Satan for the correction of the flesh that the spirit may be 
saved.) The injunction is not to hear the church in the 
exposition of doctrine, but it is, that when a brother hath 
trespassed against you, you are first to go alone and tell 
him his fault, and if he hear thee, well; if not, take some 
of the officers of the church along, and if he hear not them, 
tell it to the church; and if he hear not the church: let 
him be as a heathen; i. e. excommunicate him. It is plain, 
that the text only proves, that in cases of order, the 
church is the ultimate appellate court. It only requires 
that the passage be read in its connexion to convince any 
one, that it has nothing to do with the point in hand. 
The text in John xvi, 13, where the spirit of truth is again 
spoken of, does not prove their point for the same rea- 
son that the promise itself does not. As to the first coun- 
cil being an argument, it cannot be, for we all admit 
that the first council consisted of inspired men. 

It will be observed, that the pope of Rome, in quot- 
ing these texts, to support his claim to infallibility, takes 
for granted, that by ''the church," is meant the church 
of Rome, and by the expressions "ye," and ''my peo- 
ple," and "Zion," &c. &c. is meant the Romish Church 
only; which, of course, is taking for granted, what we 

* Matthew xviii, 17. 



CHURCH OF ROME IST 

Utterly denyf papists must, therefore, prove that their 
church is referred to, or all their quotations go for 
nothing. 

The immediately succeeding text in this connexion, 
is relied on by papists with much confidence. " Verily 
I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven. " Now the great ques- 
tion here is, to what does the binding and loosing spoken 
of here refer .^ Why, plainly, it refers to those acts of 
the church of which Christ was then speaking, that is, to 
church censures and discipline. In the preceding text, 
as we have seen, our Saviour gives direction how to treat 
an offender against the order of the church. He gives 
the church the power of discipline even to excommuni- 
cation, and then assures the church, that wherever that 
discipline is exercised by the proper authorities of the 
church, and in a proper manner, he will sanction it, he 
will recognize it| that what they thus do, in virtue of 
the authority delegated to them, he will sanction^ and 
it is this that gives so much importance to a solemn ex- 
communication by the church. It is plain, therefore, 
that this passage refers to the samer thing with the pre- 
ceding one, namely, to ecclesiastical order and dis- 
cipline. It does not, and can not, refer to for- 
giving sins in reference to future punishment. Christ 
was exalted to give remission of sins in this sense : sins 
can not be forgiven in this sense, without the exercise of 
faith and repentance. But how is a mere man to know 
when this is exercised. Such a construction of the text, 
would plainly leave the salvation of every man to the 
option of the church. It evidently refers, merely to sins 
which are cognizable by the visible church. It can not, 
therefore, refer to the settling of controversies. The 
same remark is applicable to the next verse, " that if 

N 



138 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

two or three of you shall agree on earth, as touching any 
thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my 
Father which is in Heaven," &c. 

This is to show the efficacy of joint prayer. It more- 
over shows, that no single person may take the church 
authority in his own hands. If it referred to infallibility, 
it would prove too much, for it would prove that any two 
would be infallible; there would be no need of conven- 
ing a great council to decide matters; this whole passage, 
therefore, unless torn from its connexion and distorted, 
can not afford a shadow of proof for the claim of infal- 
libility. 

But admitting the full force of all these quota- 
tions, and of the arguments built upon them, all 
that is proved, is, that there is an infallible church. 
Now in a restricted sense we are not disposed to deny 
this; for, that there exists a church infallible in funda- 
mentals we readily admit; but this is very far from 
proving that any church is an infallible guide in matters 
of religion; and much farther still from proving that the 
Romish church is that church. An invisible church may 
be in itself infallible, but being invisible^ how shall we 
apply to it for direction even in fundamentals? We can 
have no such communication with an invisible church, 
as such; and we deny that there exists, and that papists 
have ever shown it to be even probable that there exists, 
an infallible visible church^ 

But, after all, supposing the claim to infallibility to 
be fairly and indisputably made out; supposing we have 
been driven from every stand we have taken, in opposing 
this claim, and supposing this claim to be irrefutable, 
we are yet at a loss to know, what good end it will an- 
swer. It is pretended that it secures, not only unity of 
sentiment in the church, but absolute certainty as to 
what the scriptures teach. But is this really the case ? 



CHURCH OF ROME. 139 

It has been, we think, fully shown that unity of senti- 
ment has not been secured; and we think, from the very 
nature of the case, infallible certainty as to truth can 
not possibly be obtained. The pope, in his decisions 
upon the declarations of councils, or if you please, the 
pope and council together in their decisions as to what 
the scriptures teach, profess, and are supposed to be 
guided by the spirit of truth, that is, the Spirit of God. 

Now every private christian either is, or is not, under 
the same guidance. If he be, he is manifestly as infal- 
lible as the pope and his council; and if he be not thus 
guided, is he not just as liable to misinterpret the de- 
crees and decisions of the pope and council, as he is to 
misinterpret the word of God ? Does the fact that the 
scriptures are divinely inspired, render them more liable 
to misinterpretation than the language of uninspired 
men ? Or, supposing councils and popes to be guided 
by inspiration in their decisions, is there such a supe- 
riority in their inspiration, as to render their words less 
liable to misinterpretation, than the words of the evan- 
gelists and apostles, and even of the Son of God him- 
self.^ 

When the Apostle Paul declares, that by the deeds of 
the law there shall no flesh he justified in the sight of 
God^ are we more liable to error in interpreting it, as 
excluding all good works from our justification, than 
those who follow the Romish church, in giving it a di- 
rectly opposite meaning ? If, then, it is not the inspira- 
tion, or the divine superintendence of the councils and 
popes, which more completely secures to their words a 
correct interpretation, than to the words of God himself, 
what does secure it ? Were not the writers of the Old 
and New Testaments, at least, as infallible as the popes 
and councils of the church of Rome ? What is it then, 
we again ask, that prevents the meaning of the latter 



140 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

from being misunderstood, that does not prevent the 
words of the former from misconstruction ? Is it the 
mere fact of reducing divine truth to a human formula? 
Does this infallibly produce the desired effect? In 
the language of an article in the Biblical Repertory 
for 1829, we would say, ''The Lutherans have their 
confession of Augsburg; the English church their thirty- 
nine articles; the Scotch and French Calvinists have a 
confession still more extended and minute. But the 
Lutherans are Neologists, the English are Arminians^ 
the Scotch have their moderate men^ wliich is but an- 
other name for Arminians; and the French, as a church, 
have now, if we are rightly informed, no creed at all.""^ 

Manifestly then, it is not the reducing divine truth to 
a formula, or the setting it forth in human language, 
that infallibly secures to it a correct interpretation. 
A difference of opinion arises as to the true import of 
that part of scripture which speaks of predestination 
for instance, the expedient of a human formula is resort- 
ed to for the purpose of making it plain, and accordingly 
the seventeenth article of the church of England is 
drawn up for this purpose. John Calvin had taught 
that that doctrine was plainly held in the scriptures, and 
the framers of that article, agreeing with him in senti- 
ment, adopted the words of that great and good man d\- 
ixio^i verbatim A But has this secured unity of sentiment? 
No: clearly not, for there is as wide a difference in the 
interpretation of this article, as there is of that part of 
scripture which it was designed to explain and settle.. 
The question then again forces itself upon us, what is 
to secure the certain and unanimous interpretation of 
the decisions and decrees of councils and popes ? Do 
their words need less explanation than those of the all- 
wise and infallible God? If not, according to their own 

* Page 490. f Vide Calvin's [nst. Lib. iii. chap, xx^i* 



CHURCH OF ROME. 141 

principle, they should be explained, and who shall do it? 
Why, the priests and doctors are the daily interpreters 
of those decisions: but on the same principle, the priests 
and doctors need interpreters, and who shall they be? 
Why, where they dare, they employ that most infallible 
of all interpreters, that most sure and successful cor- 
rector of heresy, the IxquisiTioN. 

Papists vainly imagine that by the infallibility of their 
church the authority of the scriptures is established. 
They are for ever boasting that it was through their 
church alone that we obtained the scriptures, and that 
her infallibility is the best evidence of their genuineness 
and antiquity. But while they take the credit of this 
to themselves, we give it to the great Author of the 
" Lively Oracles," vv^ho has preserved them uncorrupted 
to the present day. Their divinity seemed to secure 
them from being tainted and polluted by the filth of the 
medium through which they have passed. God, by his 
providence, preserved them in that church, as he did in 
the Jewish church, even after it had become corruptj 
and if the simple fact of preserving the scriptures entire 
and uncorrupted is an evidence of infallibility, the Jewish 
church had the same title to infallibility that the Romish 
church now has: and this title I will readily acknow- 
ledge, since the corruption and apostacy of both, have 
clearly shown that their infallibility was the same in kind 
and degree. But will Papists vouch their infallibility 
for the authenticity of the second, commandment^ as it 
stands in our edition of the scriptures ? It certainly 
came down to us through the same medium with the rest 
of the scriptures, and its authority rests upon the same 
foundation. But is it true that their authenticity is 
established only by the infallibility of the church of 
Rome? 

It is not necessary to the true nature of faith, says 
k3 



142 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

Archbishop Tillotson, that we should be infallibly se- 
cured of the means whereby the Christian doctrine is 
conveyed to us: particularly of the antiquity and au- 
thority of the books of scripture, and that the expres- 
sions in it cannot possibly bear any other sense; which 
is evident upon these two accounts, because faith may 
he without this infallible security^ and because in the 
particulars mentioned it is impossible to be had. 

1. Because faith may be without this infallible se- 
curity. He that is so assured of the antiquity and au- 
thority of the books of scripture, and of the sense of those 
texts wherein the doctrines of Christianity are plainly 
delivered, as to see no just cause to doubt thereof, may 
really assent to those doctrines, though he have no in- 
fallible security: and an assent so grounded I affirm to 
have the true nature of faith. For what degree of assent, 
and what security of the means^ which convey to us the 
knowledge of Christianity, are necessary to the true na- 
ture of faith, is to be estimated from the end of faith, 
wliich is the salvation of men's souls. And whoever is 
so assured of the authority and sense of scripture, as to 
believe the doctrine of it, and to live accordingly, shall 
be saved. And surely such a belief as will save a man, 
hath the true nature of faith, though it be not infallible. 
And if God have sufficiently provided for the salvation 
of men of all capacities, it is no such reflection upon the 
goodness and wisdom of providence as Mr. S.^ imagines, 
that he hath not taken care that every man's faith should 
arrive to the degree of infallibility; nor does our blessed 
Saviour, for not having made this provision, deserve 

*Mr. S. is the author of a work, entitled ^^ Faith vindicated 
from the possibility of falsehoodt^ written against a passage in 
Tillotson's sermon on " the wisdom of being religious," in which 
sermon he was led to examine, with his usual ability, some of the 
principles involved in the Romish doctrine of infallibility. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 143 

''to be esteemed by all the world, not as a wise law- 
giver, but a mere ignoramus and impostor," as one of 
his fellow controvertists * speaks with reverence. 

Besides, this assertion that infallibility is necessary 
to the true nature of that assent which we call faith, is 
plainly false on another account also: because faith ad- 
mits of degrees. But infallibility has none. The scrip- 
ture speaks of a weak and a strong faith, and of the in- 
crease of faith; but I never heard of a weak and strong 
infallibility. Infallibility is the highest perfection of a 
knowing faculty, and consequently the firmest degree 
of assent upon the firmest grounds, and which are known 
to be so. But will Mr. S. say, that the highest degree 
of assent admits of degrees, and is capable of increase ? 
Infallibility is an absolute impossibility of being deceiv- 
ed; now I desire Mr. vS. to show me the degrees of ab- 
solute impossibility; and if he could do that, consequently 
there might be degrees of infallibility, yet I can not be- 
lieve Mr. S. would think fit to call any degrees of infal- 
libility a weak faith or assent. 

2. Because an infallible security, in the particulars 
mentioned, is impossible to be had. I mean in an ordi- 
nary way, and without miracle and particular revelation; 
because the nature of the thing is incapable of it. The 
utmost security we have of the antiquity of any book, 
is human testimony^ and all human testimony is fallible 
for this plain reason, because all men are fallible. And 
though Mr. S., in defence of his beloved tradition^ is 
pleased to say that human testimony in some cases is 
infallible, yet I think no man before him was ever so 
hardy as to maintain that the testimony oi fallible men 
was infallible. I grant it to be in many cases certain; 
that is, such as a considerate man may prudently rely 
and proceed upon, and hath no just cause to doubt of; 
* Labyrinthus Cantauriensis, p. 77* 



144 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

and such as none but an obstinate man or a fool can 
deny. And that thus the learned men of his own church 
define certainty, Mr. S. (if he would but vouchsafe to 
read such books) might have learnt from Melchior Canus, 
who, speaking of the firmness of human testimony in 
some cases (which yet he did not believe to be infallible,) 
defines it thus: *' Those things are certain among men, 
which can not be denied without obstinacy and folly."* 
I know Mr. S. is pleased to say that certainty and in- 
fallihility are all one. And he is the first man, that I 
know of, that ever said it. And yet perhaps somebody 
may have been before him in it, for I remember Tully 
says, that '' there is nothing so foolish but some philoso- 
pher or other has said it. " I am sure Mr. S. 's ow^n phi- 
losopher, Mr. White, contradicts him in this most clear- 
ly, in his ''preface to Rushworth^s Dialogues^^^ where, 
explicating the term "moral certainty ^'^^ he tells us that 
''some understood by it such a certainty as makes the 
cause always work the same effect, though it take not 
away the absolute possibility of working other ways;" 
and this he, presently after, tells us "ought absolutely 
to be recorded in the degree of true certainty, and the 
autliors considered as mistaken in undervaluing it. " So 
that according to Mr. White, true certainty may consist 
with a possibility of the contrary^ and consequently Mr. 
S. is mistaken in thinking certainty and infallibility to 
be all one. Nay, I do not find any two of them agreeing 
among themselves, about the notions of infallibility and 
certainty. Mr. White says that what some call inoral 
certainty is trite certainty^ though it do not take away a 
possibility of the contrary. Mr. S. asserts the direct 
contrary, that moral certainty is only probability^ be- 
cause it does not take away the possibility of the coir- 

* Certa apud homines ea sunt, qnse negari sine pervicacia, et 
stultitia non possunt. De lo. Theol. lib. ii, c. 4. 



CHURCH OF ROME. 145 

trary. The "Guide in Controversies^^^ differs from them 
both, and makes morale certain^ and infallihle, all one. 
I desire that they would agree upon these matters among 
themselves, before they quarrel with us about them. 

In brief then, though moral certainty be sometimes 
taken for a high degree of probability which can only 
produce a doubtful assent, yet it is also frequently used 
for a firm and undoubted assent to a thing, upon such 
grounds as are fit fully to satisfy a prudent man^ and in 
this sense I have always used the term. But now in- 
fallibility is an absolute security from all possibility of 
mistake in what it believes. And there are but two 
ways for the understanding to be thus secured; either 
by the perfection of its own nature, or by supernatural 
assistance. But no human understanding being abso- 
lutely secured from possibility of mistake, by the per- 
fection of its own nature, (which I think all mankind 
except Mr. S. have hitherto granted,) it follows, that 
no man can be infallible in any thing, but by supernatu- 
ral assistance. Nor did ever the church of Rome pre- 
tend to infallibility upon any other account, as every 
one knows that has been conversant in the writings of 
their learned men, who generally resolve faith into the 
infallible testimony of the church, and the infallibility 
of their church into our Saviour's promise: and the evi- 
dence of the true church into the marks of the churchy 
or the motives of credibility: which motives are acknow- 
ledged to be only prudential, aud not demonstrative. 
Bellarmine says,t that the marks of the church do not 
make it evidently true, which is the true church, but 
only evidently credible; ^'and that,'' says he, ''is said to 
be evidently credible which is neither seen in itself, nor 
in its principles; but yet has so many and so weighty 
testimonies, that every wise man has reason to believe 

* Page 135. f^e Eccl. lib. iv. 



146 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

it." Becanus,* to the same purpose, says the ''motives 
to credibility are only the foundation of a prudent^ but 
not of an infallible assent. " 

It is contended that the great advantage which is 
secured by the infallibility of the church is, that it 
strengthens and confirms the faith of believers; and 
above all, that it unerringly guides their faith to the 
truth. This v^ould indeed be a glorious advantage 
if it were really secured; but I apprehend it is a 
position capable of demonstration, that the infalli- 
bility of the church, even supposing it to exist, never 
can, as its legitimate effect, secure this end, unless the 
believer is infallibly assured of its existence, I say, as its 
legitimate effect, because on superstitious minds this ef- 
fect may be produced ; but a mind free from all super- 
stition and bigotry, never can be confirmed in any be- 
lief by the infallibility of the church, unless it be already 
confirmed in the belief that such infallibility really ex- 
ists. The mistake of Papists in this matter lies here, 
they suppose that the mere existence of infallibility will 
secure that, which an infallible assurance of such infal- 
libility alone can secure. Supposing, therefore, that the 
Romish church is infallible, I never can be certain of the 
truth in following her, unless I am certain that she is 
infallible; the mere existence of infallibility therefore, 
without my certain knowledge of it, never can secure 
the end designed. 

If a witness, who, for the sake of argument, we will 
suppose to be actually infallible, should give his testi- 
mony to a jury in a case before them, what eifect would 
his infallibility have on the minds of the jurors, if they 
were not assured of such infallibility ? Suppose they 
should agree upon a verdict in the view oi plausible rea- 
sons and motives of credibility^ as to the existence of 
such infallibility, would it follow that the verdict would 
* Sum. Tom. 2 partic. de fide, c. 1. « 



CHURCH OF ROME. 147 

be infallibly according to truth ? would it follow, that 
the jurors themselves would be infallibly assured of the 
correctness of their verdict? If not, why should a believ- 
er, by following the church of Rome, even supposing her 
to be infallible, be strengthened and confirmed in his 
belief? 

I am not to be told, that according to this reasoning, 
since we have no infallible testimony as to the authenti- 
city of the scriptures, there is no certainty in our reli- 
gion^ the cases are altogether different, as a moment's 
examination will evince. In the case of the church of 
Rome, my uncertainty is as to the fact of her infallibil- 
ity, and not as to the infallibility of the testimony that 
she has settled points of faith. But in the other case I 
am in no doubt as to the infallibility of God. I am as 
infallibly certain as demonstration can make me, that 
God is infallible in all that he says and does; and the 
only uncertainty that can exist in this case is, as to the 
fact that he has spoken, and declared his mind. All, 
therefore, that I need be assured of in this case is, that 
the scriptures are from God; that they are certainly 
true is a natural and necessary consequence. But in 
the other case, it is not enough that I be assured that 
such and such are the declarations of the church, for 
after this I have still another difficulty, which indeed is 
the chief difficulty, and the very one with which we 
set out, viz : Is the church infallible in these declarations? 
Is it certainly known that they are according to truth? 
Let these difficulties be removed; let me be assured of 
the infallibility of the church, and then the cases will not 
be so different. 

The authenticity of the scriptures, so far as external 
evidence is concerned, does indeed depend upon human 
testimony; but it is such testimony as no reasonable man 
can reject: it is a testimony which even the infidel does 



148 INFALLIBILITY OF THE 

not reject in other matters^ it is the same kind of testi- 
mony on which criminals are capitally condemned; it is 
a species of testimony, the rejection of which would 
throw into uncertainty, doubt and confusion, the truth of 
events, the denial of which would now expose any man 
to derision and contempt, and render him a fit subject 
for the lunatic asylum. The truth is, that in the view of 
all the testimony, both external and internal, that exists 
in favour of the authenticity of the scriptures, it requires 
far more credulity to believe that they are not from God, 
than to believe the contrary. 

I have all the evidence that the nature of the case ad- 
mits of, without a miracle; and all that is necessary to 
convince any reasonable mind, that the scriptures are 
from God; and being assured of His infallibility, they 
readily obtain my assent to the truths which they con- 
tain. But, though I may have as good evidence of the 
authenticity and genuineness of the decrees and decisions 
of the church, as I have of the scriptures, yet not being 
assured of the infallibility of the church, those decrees 
and decisions do not as readily obtain my assent. If 
then the infallibility of the Romish church would secure 
the desired end, every believer must be infallibly assured 
that such infallibility actually exists; which can never 
be done by ''plausible reasons and motives of credibili- 
ty ^^^ but must be done, if at all, by miracles or demon- 
stration, as we have before observed. 

Infallibility is not necessary to the true nature of 
faith, otherwise it would make every true believer in- 
fallible in matters of faith. Besides, if this be true, says 
Archbishop Tillotson, what need is there of infallibility 
in the pope or council.^ I doubt not, says he, but that the ad- 
vocates of this doctrine would be loth to preach it at Rome; 
for I have often heard that there is an old testy gentle- 



CHURCH OF ROME. 149 

man lives there, who would take it very ill that any one 
besides himself should pretend to be infallible.* 

Infallibility is not necessary in order to ascertain the 
sense of scripture, as we have already remarked, for it 
is plainly impossible, says Tillotson, that any thing 
should be delivered in such clear and certain words, as 
are absolutely incapable of any other sense; and yet not- 
mthstanding this, the meaning of them may be so plain as 
that any unprejudiced and reasonable man may certainly 
understand them. How many de/initio7is and axioms^ 
&c. are there in Euclid, in the sense of which men are 
universally agreed,. and think themselves undoubtedly 
certain of it ? and yet the words in which they are ex- 
pressed, may possibly bear another sense. The same 
may be said concerning the doctrines and precepts of 
the Holy Scriptures; and one great reason why men do 
not so generally agree in the sense of these as of the 
other, is because the interests, and lusts, and passions, 
of men are more concerned in the one than in the other. 
Neither does oral tradition, on which papists so much 
rely, help us in this matter, for whatever uncertainty 
there may be in the sense of any texts of scripture, 
oral tradition, so far from affording us any help in this 
case, is a thousand times more uncertain and less to be 
trusted to : especially if we take that to be the traditionary 
sense of texts of scripture, which we meet in the decre- 
tals of their popes, and the acts of some of their councils; 
than which there never was any tiling in the whole world 
more absurd and ridiculous: and whence may we ex- 
pect to have the infallible traditional sense of scrip- 
ture, if not from the heads and representatives of their 
church, t 

The claim to infallibility, therefore, by the Romish 
church, seeing there is no proof of its existence, but 

* Preface to Tillotson's works, p. 9. f Ibid. p» 6. 



150 INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUkCH OF ROME. 

rather proof to the contrary, gives her no right to with* 
hold the scriptures from the people. 

But why are Papists so zealous in this matter of infal- 
libility ? There is a plain reason for it, says Tillotson: 
they find that confidence, how weakly soever it be 
grounded, has some eifect upon the common and igno- 
rant people; who are apt to think there is something 
more than ordinary in a swaggering man, that talks of 
nothing but jmnciples and demonstrations. And so we 
see it in some other professions. There is a sort of peo- 
ple very well known, who find that the most effectual 
way to cheat the people, is always to pretend to infal- 
lible CURES.* 

The original question now returns, we think, with 
peculiar force: What good end does the infallibility of 
the church, admitting that it exists, possibly answer? 
Surely none whatever. It only secures from supersti- 
tious minds that respect and submission to her authority, 
which her piety never could command, and which, from 
minds enlightened by scripture truth, even her imagined 
infallibility and all her external devotion, never could 
secure, 

* Preface to Tillotson's works, p. 10. 



CHAPTER IX. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

"And then shall that wicked be revealed,— even him, whose 
coming is after the working* of Satan, with all power, and signs, 
and lying wonders." PauL 

'•Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these 
also resist the truth: — But they shall proceed no further: for their 
folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.'* Paul 

'^Transubstaxtiation! a hard word^^^ says arch- 
bishop Tillotson, ''but I would to God that were the 
w^orst of it j the thing is much more difficult. I have 
taken some pains to consider other religions that have 
been in the world, and I must freely declare, that I 
never yet in any of them met with any article or pro- 
position, imposed upon the belief of men, half so unrea- 
sonable and hard to be believed as this is: and yet this 
in the Romish church is esteemed one of the most prin- 
cipal articles of the Christian faith f though there is no 
more certain foundation for it in scripture, than for our 
Saviour's being substantially changed into all those 
things which are said of him, as that he is a rock^ a vine^ 
a door^ and a hundred other things. 

But this is not all. This doctrine hath not only no 
certain foundation in scripture, but I have a far heavier 
charge against it, namely, that it undermines the very 
foundation of Christianity itself. And surely nothing 
ought to be admitted to be a part of the Christian doc- 
trine which destroys the reason of our belief of the 
w^hole. And that this doctrine does so, will appear evi- 
dently, if we consider what was the main argument 
which the apostles used to convince the world of the 



152 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

truth of Christianity; and that was this, that our blessed 
Saviour, the author of this doctrine, wrought such and 
such miracles, and particularly that he rose again from 
the dead. And this they proved because they were eye- 
witnesses of his miracles, and had seen him and con- 
versed with him after he was risen from the dead. But 
what if their senses did deceive them in this matter? 
then it cannot be denied but that the main proof of 
Christianity falls to the ground. 

Well! we will now suppose (as the church of Rome 
does) transubstantiation to have been one principle part 
of the Christian doctrine which the apostles preached. 
But if this doctrine be true, then all men's senses are 
deceived in a plain sensible matter, wherein it is as hard 
for them to be deceived as in any thing in the world: 
For two things can hardly be imagined more different, 
than a little bit of wafer and the whole body of a man. 
So that the apostles persuading men to believe this doc- 
trine persuaded them not to trust their senses, and yet 
the argument which they used to persuade them to this 
was built upon direct contrary principle, that men'^s 
senses are to be trusted. For if they be not, then not- 
withstanding all the evidence the apostles offered for the 
resurrection of our Saviour, he might not be risen, and 
so the faith of Christians was vain. So that they repre- 
sent the apostles as absurd as is possible, viz. going 
about to persuade men out of their senses by virtue of 
an argument, the whole strength whereof depends upon 
the certainty of sense. 

And now the matter is brought to a fair issue; If the 
testimony of sense be to be relied upon, then transub- 
stantiation is false; if it be not, then no man is sure that 
Christianity is true. For the utmost assurance that the 
apostles had of the truth, of Christianity was the testi- 
mony of their own senses concerning our Saviour's mi- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 153 

racles, and this testimony every man hath against tran- 
substantiation. From whence it plainly follows, that no 
man (no not the apostles themselves) had more reason to 
believe Christianity to be true, than every man hath to 
believe transubstantiation to be false. And we who did 
not see our Saviour's miracles, (as the apostles did) and 
have only a credible relation of them, but do see the 
Sacrament, have less evidence of the truth of Christian- 
ity than oi^Q, falsehood of transubstantiation. 

But cannot God impose upon the senses of men, and 
represent things to them otherwise than they are? Yes, 
undoubtedly. And if he hath revealed that he doth this, 
are we not to believe him? Most certainly. But then 
we ought to be assured that he hath made such a revela- 
tion; which assurance no man can have, the certainty of 
sense being taken away.*" 

''Notwithstanding the doctrine of transubstantiation is 
now held by the church of Rome," says Tillotson, in 
another place, ''yet they have not, nor can have any as- 
surance that it was the doctrine of Christ, and that it 
has descended to them by an uninterrupted tradition. 
I contend not against the word transubstantiation, 
(which is generally acknowledged to be new) but only 
the thing signified by it, a substantial change of the 
bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. And 
this I might shew at large not to have been the doctrine 
of the ancient fathers. But because Mr. White and 
Dr. Holden, and Mr. Cressy do so frequently and con- 
fidently tell us, that nothing is to be reputed a tradition- 
ary doctrine, the contrary whereof hath been publicly 
held by any catholic who continued afterwards uncen- 
sured, and in the communion of the church: therefore I 
shall content myself at present with one clear testimony, 
and that of a very eminent person in the church, St. 

* Tillotson's Works, rol. i. p. 122. 
o 2 



154 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

Theodoret, concerning whom Pope Leo, (in an epistle 
to him, at the end of Theodoret' s works) gives this tes- 
timony, that in the judgment of the apostolic Seehe wa& 
free from all stain of heresy. The passage I intend is 
in his dialogues, between a catholic under the name of 
Orthodoxus, and Eranistes, who sustained the person of 
an heretic. Eranistes* maintaining that the body of 
Christ was changed into the substance of divinity, he il- 
lustrates it by this similitude. ''As," says he, ''the 
symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing be- 
fore the invocation of the priest^ but after the invoca- 
tion, are changed and do become another thing, so the 
body of our Lord, after his ascension, is changed into 
the divine substance." To which Orthodoxus returns 
this answer, "Thou art caught in thine own net; because 
the mystical symbols after consecration do not pass out 
of their own nature; for they remain in their former 
substance, figure and appearance, and may be seen and 
handled even as before." He does not only in express 
words deny the substance of the symbols to be changed, 
but the occasion upon which these words are brought in, 
and the scope of them (if they be of any force against 
the heretic's illustration) render them incapable of 
any other sense. When Mr. S. hath answered this tes- 
timony, I have more for him. 

That which I mainly urge against this doctrine is, the 
monstrous absurdities and contradictions contained in 
it, together with the necessary consequence of them. 
Several of the absurdities of it are well brought together 
by Scotus,t who tells us, that to prove the possibility of 
Christ's body being contained under the species of 
bread and wine, many things must be proved which 
seem to involve a contradiction; as 1. That one quan- 
tum (or extended body) may be together in the very 
* Dialo. 2. t Distinct. 1. 4. dist. 10. qu. i. n. 3. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 155 

same place with another. 2. That a less quantum may 
be together in the same place with a greater; i. e. a 
body of less extension may occupy not only the same, 
but as much room as a body of greater extension does; 
which is to say no more but this, that a body less than 
another may be as great as that other even whilst it is 
less than it. S. That a greater quantum may be to- 
gether with every part of a less quantum; i. e. a body 
that is greater than another, may be as little as the least 
part of that other body which is less than it. 4. That a 
subject may be without quantity; i. e. there may be a 
body which hath no kind of magnitude. 5. That a 
body may be somewhere where it was not before with- 
out changing its place; i. e. a body may be removed to 
another place, whilst it remains still in the same place. 
6. That a quantum may be without any quantitative 
mode; i. e. a body may be extended without any man- 
ner of extension. *'The possibility of all which," he 
saith, (and I am very much of his mind,) ^'it would be 
too tedious a work to prove;" and therefore he only at- 
tempts to prove the two last, which, in all reason, is 
work enough for one man. All these seeming contra- 
dictions, as he modestly calls them, are by his own ac- 
knowledgment involved in this doctrine. To these I 
might add many more; as, how a thing can be said to 
be changed into another thing which did exist before. 
How a body can be present in a place after the manner 
of a spirit : and yet this they affirm concerning the presence 
of Christ's body in the sacrament; one might as well 
say that snow is black, but not after the manner of 
blackness, but in the way of whiteness, which is to talk 
nonsense after the manner of sense. How the whole body 
of Christ can be contained under the least sensible part 
of the species of bread, as is generally affirmed : nay, 



156 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

and Scotus* adds, that the whole body is under every 
little part in its full proportion; for he says expressly, 
that ^Hhe head and the foot of the body of Christ are as 
far distant from one another in the sacrament, as they 
are in Heaven;" as if one should say that a body, all 
whose parts lie within the compass of a small pin's head, 
may yet within that little compass have parts two yards 
distant from one another. And lastly, how the sensible 
species of bread, e. g. quantity^ whiteness, softness^ &c. 
can exist without any subject: To affirm the possibility 
of which, (as generally they do,) is to say that there may 
be quantities of white and soft nothings: for this is the 
plain English of that assertion, that sensible species may 
exist without a subject: which being stripped of those 
terms of art {species and subject) that do a little disguise 
it, it appears to be plain nonsense, "t 

The doctrine of transubstantiation originated in the 
latter part of what is commonly called the "dark age.^^ 
It was settled to be an article of faith in the year 1215; 
and surely it is a doctrine well suited to the philosophy 
of such an age. If, as this doctrine supposes, the pro- 
perties of the bread remain, while the substance is 
changed, does it not settle an important point in natural 
science? namely, that the properties of one substance 
may readily become the properties of another, and quite 
a different substance. In what way do we ascertain the 
nature of substances but by their properties? If the sub- 
stance may change, and yet the properties remain the 
same, we can never be certain of the substance of any 
thing; while feeding upon bread, we may be eating 
flesh; we never can be certain that we are pur- 
chasing what we intend to purchase: the properties may 
indeed be the same, but the substance may be altogether 
different. 

* Distinct. 1. 4. dist. 10, qu. i. n. 11. f Till. vol. i. p. 73S. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 157 

But this doctrine settles another point in natural sci- 
ence, namely, that the difference in matter consists in 
something else besides the difference in its properties. 
Who can decide, except by this wonderful doctrine, 
that the difference in matter, consists in a real difference 
in the substratum^ or substance, and not merely in its 
properties? Who can tell, except by this doctrine, but 
that the substratum of all matter is the same, and that 
all the difference which can be ascertained, consists 
merely in its properties? surely this was a wonderful 
discovery for the "dark age:^^ no discovery in the most 
enlightened age can equal this, and it should therefore 
redeem the character of the thirteenth century at least, 
from the imputation of ignorance and superstition. 

By the Power of Chymical analysis the real substance 
of the bread, both before and after consecration, can be 
ascertained, as far as it is known, and as far as any mat- 
ter of belief should be predicated of it. 

It is wild and extravagant to rest an article of faith, 
(unless the truth of it be revealed) upon that wliich lies 
far beyond the reach of all human knowledge: and still 
more wild and extravagant does it become, when that on 
which the article of faith rests, is opposed and contra- 
dicted by all the knowledge we possess. Is it said that 
faith on the part of him that receives the bread is neces- 
sary to its becoming the body, blood, &c. of Christ? If 
so, then the consecration of the Priest does not occasion 
the change, but it is left entirely with those who receive 
it. Besides, the change in question cannot take place 
until it is eaten, for before this, it is uncertain whether 
or not it will be eaten in faith; so that the intention of 
the receiver of the Sacrament, may frustrate the inten- 
tion of the Pri^t. Now if eating in faith be necessary 
to the existence of this change, why is the bread adored 
before it is eaten? Manifestly this is idolatry, for ac- 



158 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

cording to this doctrine, until eaten, the change is not 
wrought. Again, if faith in the receiver be necessary 
to the miracle, it is wrought by the believer, not by the 
Priest. I mean wrought by the believer in the same 
sense in which miracles may be said to be wrought by the 
Apostles. Here we may ask why need the Priest con- 
secrate the wafer at all, if the change depend entirely 
upon the faith of the receiver? why may not the believer 
eat a piece of common bread, and believe that he is eat- 
ing the body and blood of Christ.^ Is it said he has no 
warrant from Scripture for so doing? what better war- 
rant from Scripture has he for believing that what he eats 
after the consecration of the Priest, is flesh and blood? 
does scripture teach, if the Christian believes what he 
eats after consecration, to be the real body of Christ, that 
in such case, it is the real body? if so, point us to the 
passage. The efficacy of faith always depends upon a 
promise; but there is no promise on record in the scrip- 
tures, that if a person, while he takes this sacrament, 
only believe he is eating the body of Christ, that on the 
exercise of such faith, it shall be the body of Christ 
which he eats. If then there be no such promise, it 
might be said with equal propriety that whatever we can 
bring ourselves to believe, is certainly true: so that if a 
person will endeavour to masticate a stone, and only be- 
lieve that it is flesh, it will be flesh; by which means 
many a starving Papist might satisfy his hunger on the 
wayside, ifit were not for this most important considera- 
tion, that it would require a vast deal more faith in this 
case to satisfy himself that it was true, than in the other.* 

*This part of our subject reminds us of an anecdote which may 
serve to illustrate the point in hand. When Erasmus was in 
England, he had a controversy with Sir Thomas More, on the 
very subject now before us.- Sir Thomas insisted that if you 
really believe that you receive the body and blood of Christ ]r\ 
the sacramental bread, then you do actually receive it. The dis- 



^TRANSUBSTANTIATION 159 

There are some questions arising out of this doctrine 
of transubstantiation, which I should like to have an- 
swered by those who hold it: they are such as the follow- 
ing: 1: If you abstract the properties of bread and 
flesh, does any thing remain of which you can rationally 
and scientifically predicate a change? 2: After their 
properties are abstracted, would there be any difference 
between the flesh and the bread? 3: If you answer 
these questions in the affirmative, I desire to know by 
what means you obtained the information, and by what 
means you ascertain that a change is really effected? 4: 
Can that which has all the properties of bread be any 
thing else which is not bread? By this change it is held 
by Romanists, that the bread becomes the body ^ bloody 
soul a.nd divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: 
5: Can flesh and blood have all the properties of bread 
and not. have one property peculiar to flesh, and yet be 
real, bona fide flesh? 6: Can matter become Spirit, 
and yet retain all the properties of matter? 7: Abstract- 
ing the properties, what is the difference between matter 
and Spirit? 8: Can senseless matter become intelligent 
divinity? you perceive the question here is not whether 

putants separated without coming to an agreement in sentiment; 
and when Erasmus was on his return to Holland, he borrowed of 
Sir Thomas a small horse called a 'palfrey, "on which he rode to 
the water side; and instead of sending back the palfrey with the 
servant who accompanied him, he shiped him on board the same 
vessel that took himself to Holland, and sent back by the servant, 
the following lines to Sir Thomas: 

Nonne memenisti 

Quod mihi dixisti 

De corpore Christi, 

Crede quod edis, et edis? 

Idem tibi scribo 

De tuo palfrido, 

Crede quod habes, ethabes. 
which may be thus translated : **rro you not remember what you 
said to me about the body of Christ, believe that you eat it, and 
you eat it? The same I write to you in regard to your palfrey, 
believe that you have him, and you really have him.'' 



160 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

divinity can be infused into matter: But whether the 
matter ceases to be matter and becomes divinity? 9: 
Has the bread, after consecration, the power to create? 
10: If it is divinity, has it all the attributes of divinity, 
viz : omnipotence, omniscience, &c. 11: Is the soul and 
divinity eaten? if not, what becomes of it? 12: If not 
eaten, why need the bread be changed into more than 
flesh and blood ? 1 3 : If eaten, does it ever separate from 
the matter? if so, when? i. e: does the consecrated host 
ever become senseless matter again? if so, when? 14: 
If not, where are all the Gods that have been thus pro- 
duced? Oh! is it of my blessed Saviour that all these 
things are aflirmed! Again, 15: Do we know any thing 
of matter, beyond its properties? 16: Is the change 
wrought in what we know nothing about? 17: How do 
I know then, that a change is wrought? does the church 
affirm it? How do I know that the church affirms the 
truth? 18: If, in repeating the form of consecration, 
the officiating Priest does not intend that a change shall 
be wrought, is it wrought? 19: Does not the change 
then, depend entirely upon the intention of the officiating 
Priest? 20: Does the bread, after consecration, become 
a prevalent intercessor with God? may it be worshipped 
as the SUPREME god? 21: Is this revealed in the scrip- 
tures? 22: Did the Apostles teach it? 23: Did mar- 
tyrs die rather than renounce it? 24 : Did the idolatrous 
Heathen persecute the primative Christians for believ- 
ing and teaching it? 25 : Does the infallible church err in 
holding it to be an article of faith without belief in which 
there is no salvation ? 26: Did the Lateran council in 
1215, under Innocent I H. settle all the points of natural 
science involved in this doctrine? If so, as little as I 
think of their theology, I should think less of their philos- 
ophy. 27: Is there a miracle on scripture record, which is 
not wrought in, and predicated of the properties of matter 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161 

or Spirit, 28: Do not these questions naturally arise 
out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. 29: Who will 
undertake to give such answers to them as shall not be 
unfavourable to this fundamental dodrim? 

Now the proper and necessary consequence of this 
doctrine, says Tillotson, is to take away all certainty, 
and especially the certainty of sense: For if that which 
my sight and taste and touch do all assure me to be a 
little piece of wafer, may notwithstanding this, be flesh 
and blood, even the whole body of a man 5 then notwith- 
standing the greatest assurance that sense can give me, 
that any thing is this or tliat, it may be quite another 
thing from what sense reported it to be. If so, then fare- 
well to the Infallibility of Tradition, which depends upon 
the certainty of sense: and which is a worse conse- 
quence, if this doctrine be admitted we can have no sufii- 
cient assurance that the christian doctrine is a divine re- 
velation. For the assurance of that, depending upon the 
assurance we have of the miracles said to be wrought for 
the confirmation of it, and all the assurance we can have 
of a miracle, depending upon the certainty of our senses; 
it is very plain, that that doctrine which takes away the 
certainty of sense, does in so doing overthrow the cer- 
tainty of the christian religion. And what can be more vain 
than to pretend, that a man may be assured that such a 
doctrine is revealed by God, and consequently true, 
which if it be true, a man can have no assurance at all of 
any divine revelation? Surely nothing is to be admit- 
ted by us as certain, which being admitted, we can be 
certain of nothing. It is a wonder that any man who 
considers the natural consequences of this doctrine can 
be a Papist; unless he have attained to Mr. Cressy's 
pitch of learning, who speaking of the difficult arguments 
wherewith this doctrine was pressed, says* plainly, ''I 

*Exomol. c. 73, Sect. 7. 

p 



16£ TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

must answer freely and ingenuously, that I have not 
learned to answer such arguments, but to despise them.'' 
And if this be a good way, whenever we have a mind to 
believe any thing, to scorn fliose objections against it 
which w^e cannot solve; then the christian religion hath no 
advantage above the vilest enthusiasm; and a Turk may 
maintain Mahomet and his Alcoran (in opposition to 
Christ and his doctrine) against all that Grotius, or any 
other hath said, if he can but keep his countenance, and 
gravely say, / have not learned to answer such argu- 
ments, but to despise them. — Tillotson^s Rule of Faith. 

Romanists with characteristic zeal for error, have en- 
deavoured to press upon those protestants who hold to 
the divinity of Christ, the dilemma of either giving up 
that fundamental point, or receiving the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, on the ground that there is a mys- 
tery in both. But Tillotson has well answered them on 
this point: in his discourse ' 'concerning the unity of the 
divine nature" he says, 

' 'Before I leave this argument, I cannot but take no- 
tice of one thing which they of the church of Rome are 
perpetually objecting to us upon this occasion. And it 
is this, that by the same reason that we believe the doc- 
trine of the trinity, we may and must receive, that of 
transubstantiation. God forbid: because of all the doc- 
trines that ever were in any religion, this of transub- 
stantiation is certainly the most abominably absurd. 

However, this objection^plainly shows how fondly and 
obstinately they are addicted to their own errors, how 
misshapen and monstrous soever; insomuch, that rather 
than the dictates of their church, how absurd soever, 
should be called in question, they will question the truth 
even of Christianity itself; and if we will not take in 
transubstantiation, and admit it to be a necessary arti- 
cle of the christian faith, they grow so sullen and despe- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 163 

rate that they matter not what becomes of all the rest; 
And rather than not have their mil of us in that which is 
controverted, they will give up that which by their own 
confession is an undoubted article of the christian faith, 
and not controverted on either side; except only by the 
Socinians, who yet are hearty enemies to transubstantia- 
tion, and have exposed the absurdity of it with great ad- 
vantage. 

But I shall endeavour to return a more particular an- 
swer to this objection, and such a one as I hope will sat- 
isfy every considerate and unprejudiced mind, that after 
all this confidence and swaggering of theirs, there is by 
no means equal reason either for the receiving or for the 
rejecting of these two doctrines of the trinity and tran- 
substantiation. 

1st, There is not equal reason for the belief of these 
two doctrines. This objection, if it be of any force, 
must suppose that there is equal evidence and proof from 
scripture for these two doctrines: But this we utterly 
deny, and with great reason; because it is no more evi- 
dent from the words of scripture, that the sacramental 
bread is substantially changed into Christ's natural body 
by virtue of those words, " This is my Body^^^ than it 
is, that Christ is substantially changed into a natural 
Vine by virtue of those words,* / am the true Vine', or 
than the Rock in the Wilderness, of which the Israelites 
drank, was substantially changed into the person of 
Christ, because it is expressly said, ' 'that rock was Christ i^'^ 
or than that the christian church is substantially chang- 
ed into the natural body of Christ, because it is in ex- 
press terms said of the church, that it is his body.t 

But besides this, several of their most learned writers 
have freely acknowledged that transubstantiation can 

*Joh. 15, X. fEph. la 23, 



164 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

neither be directly proved, nor necessarily concluded 
from scripture: But this tlie writers of the christian 
church did never acknowledge concerning the trinity, 
and the divinity of Christy but have always appealed to 
the clear and undeniable testimonies of scripture for the 
proof of these doctrines. And then the whole force of 
the objection amounts to tliis, that if I am bound to be- 
lieve what I am sure God says, though I cannot com- 
prehend it; then I am bound by the same reason to be- 
lieve the greatest absurdity in the world, though I have 
no manner of assurance of any divine revelation con- 
cerning it. And if this be their meaning, though we un- 
derstand not transubstantiation, yet we very well under- 
stand what they would have, but cannot grant it; because 
there is not equal reason to believe two things, for one 
of which there is good proof, and for the other no proof 
at all. 

2d. Neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of 
these two doctrines. This the objection supposes, which 
yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these 
two grounds: Either because these two doctrines are 
equally incomprehensible^ or because they are equally 
loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions, 

The first is no good ground of rejecting any doctrine, 
merely because it is incomprehensible, as I have abun- 
dantly shewed already. But besides this, there is a wide 
difference between plain matters of sense, and mysteries 
concerning God; and it does by no means follow, that, 
if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which 
he cannot comprehend, he hath no reason afterwards to 
believe what he himself sees. This is a most unreason, 
able and destructive way of arguing, because it strikes 
at the foundation of all certainty, and sets every man at 
liberty to deny the most plain and evident truths of 
Christianity, if he may not be humoured in having the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. -» T-^ jg^ 

absurdest things in the world admitted for true. The 
next step will be to persuade us, that we may as well de- 
ny the being of God because his nature is incomprehen- 
sible by our reason^ as deny transubstantiation because 
it evidently contradicts our senses. 

£d. Nor are these two doctrines loaded with the like 
absurdities and contradictions: So far from this, that 
the doctrine of the trinity, as it is delivered in the scrip- 
tures, and hath already been explained, hath no absurdi- 
ty or contradiction either involved in it, or necessarily 
consequent upon it: But the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation is big with all imaginable absurdity and contra- 
diction. And their own schoolmen have sufficiently ex- 
posed it^ especially Scotus, and he designed to do so, as 
any man that attentively reads him may plainly discov- 
er: For m his disputation about it, he treats this doc- 
trine with the greatest contempt, as a new invention of 
the council of Lateran under Pope Innocent III. To 
the decree of which council concerning it, he seems to 
pay a formal submission, but really derides it as contrary 
to the common sense and reason of mankind, and not at 
all supported by scripture; as any one may easily discern 
that will carefully consider his manner of handling it 
and the result of his whole disputation about it. 

And now suppose there were some appearance of ab- 
surdity and contradiction in the doctrine of the trinity 
as it is delivered in scripture, must we therefore believe 
a doctrine which is not at all revealed in scripture, and 
which hath certainly in it, all the absurdities in the world, 
and all the contradictions to sense and reason; and which 
once admitted, doth at once destroy all certainty.^ Yes, 
say they, why not? since we of the church of Rome are 
satisfied that this dcctrine is revealed in scripture; or, 
if it be not, is defined by the church, which is every whit 
as good. But is this equal, to demand of us the belief of 

p 2 



166 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

a thing which hath always been controverted, not only 
between us and them, but even among themselves, at 
least till the council of Trent? And this upon such un- 
reasonable terms, that we must either yield this point to 
them or else renounce a doctrine agreed on both sides to 
be revealed in scripture. 

To shew the unreasonableness of this proceeding, let 
us suppose a priest of the church ofRome pressing a Jew 
or Turk to the belief of transubstantiation, and because 
one kindness deserves another, the Jew or Turk should 
demand of him the belief of all the fables in the Talmud, 
or in the Alcoran; since none of these, nor indeed all 
of them together, are near so absurd as transubstantia- 
tion : Would not this be much more reasonable and equal 
than what they demand of us? Since no absurdity, how 
monstrous and big soever, can bethought of, which may 
not enter into an understanding in which a breach hath 
been already made, wide enough to admit transubstantia- 
tion. The priests of Baal did not half so much deserve 
to be exposed by the Prophet for their superstition and 
folly, as the priests of the church of Rome do for this 
senseless and stupid doctrine of theirs with a hard name. 
I shall only add this one thing more, that if this doctrine 
were possible to be true, and clearly proved to be so; yet 
it would be evidently useless and to no purpose. For it 
pretends to change the substance of one thing into the 
substance of another thing that is already, and before this 
change is pretended to be made. But to what purpose? 
Not to make the body of Christ, for that was already in 
being; and the substance of the bread is lost, nothing of 
it remaineth but accidents, which are good for nothing, 
and indeed are nothing when the substance is destroyed 
and gone." 



IS)l£g(^®W^gl 



AGAINST 



TRA]^SUBSTA]?rTIATIOXs 



BY 



.ARCHBISHOP TIZ.I.0TSOXT. 



"Archbishop Tillotson was truly and seriously 
religious, but without affectation, bigotry, or supersti- 
tion^ his notions of morality were fine and sublime; his 
thread of reasoning was easy, clear and solid. He was 
not only the best preacher of the age, but seemed to 
have brought preaching to perfection: his sermons were 
so well heard and liked, and so much read, that all the 
nation proposed him as a pattern, and studied to copy 
after him." 

£p, Burnet's HkU of his own time, vol. iv. p. 96. 



A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

TRANSUBSTANTIATIOJT. 



Concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper, one 
of the two great positive institutions of the Christian 
religion, there are two main points of diiference between 
us and the church of Rome, One about the doctrine of 
transubstantiation; in which they think, but are not 
certain, that they have the scripture and the words of 
our Saviour on their side: the other, about the adminis- 
tration of this sacrament to the people in both kinds ^ in 
which we are sure that we have the scripture and our 
Saviour's institution on our side, and that so plainly 
that our adversaries themselves do not deny it. 

Of the first of these I shall now treat, and endeavour 
to show against the church of Rome, that in this sacra- 
ment there is no substantial change made of the elements 
of bread and wine into the natural body and blood of 
Christ; that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, 
and suffered upon the cross; for so they explain that 
hard word transubstantiation. 

Before I engage in this argument, I cannot but ob- 
serve what an unreasonable task we are put upon, by 
the bold confidence of our adversaries, to dispute a 
matter of sense; which is one of those tilings about which 
Aristotle hath long since pronounced there ought to be 
no dispute. 

It might well seem strange if any man should write a 
book, to prove that an egg is not an elephant^ and that a 
musket ball is not a pike: It is every whit as hard a case 
to be put to maintain by a long discourse, that what we 



170 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

see and handle and taste to be breads is bread and not 
the body of a man$ and what we see and taste to be 
wine^ is wine and not blood: and if this evidence may 
not pass for sufficient without any farther proof, I do 
not see why any man, that hath confidence enough to 
do so, may not deny any thing to be what all the world 
sees it is^ or affirm any thing to be what all the world 
sees it is not: and this without all possibility of being 
further confuted, So that the business of transubstan- 
tiation is not a controversy of scripture against scripture, 
or of reason against reason, but of downright impudence 
against the plain meaning of scripture, and all the sense 
and reason of mankind. 

It is a most self-evident falsehood; and there is no 
doctrine or proposition in the world that is of itself more 
evidently true, than transubstantiation is evidently false: 
and yet if it were possible to be true, it would be the 
most ill-natured and pernicious truth in the world, be- 
cause it would suffer nothing else to be true; it is like 
the Roman Catholic church, which will needs be the 
whole Christian church, and will allow no other society 
of Christians to be any part of it: so transubstantiation, 
if it be true at all, it is all truth, and nothing else is 
true; for it cannot be true unless our senses, and the 
senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper 
objects; and if this be true and certain, then nothing else 
can be so; for if we be not certain of what we see, we 
can be certain of nothing. 

And yet notwithstanding all this, there are a company 
of men in the world so abandoned and given up by God 
to the efficacy of delusion, as in good earnest to believe 
this gross and palpable error, and to impose the belief of 
it upon the Christian world under no less penalties than 
a temporal death and eternal damnation. And there- 
fore, to undeceive, if possible, these deluded souls, it 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 171 

will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of 
so false a doctrine, and to lay open the monstrous ab- 
surdity of it. 

And in the handling of this argument, I shall proceed 
in this plain method. 

I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons 
of the church of Rome for this doctrine. 

II. I shall produce our objections against it. And if I 
can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it, and 
that there are invincible objections against it, then every 
man is not only in reason excused from believing this 
doctrine, but hath great cause to believe the contrary. 

First, I will consider the pretended grounds and 
reasons of the church of Rome for this doctrine. Which 
must be one or more of these five. Either 1st, The au- 
thority of scripture. Or 2dly, The perpetual belief of 
this doctrine in the Christian church, as an evidence 
that they always understood and interpreted our Sa- 
viour's words, ''This is my body^^^ in this sense. Or 
odly, The authority of the present church to make and 
declare new articles of faith. Or 4thly5 The absolute 
necesity of such a change as this in the sacrament to 
the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacra- 
ment. Or 5thly, To magnify the power of the priest in 
being able to work so great a miracle. 

1st. They pretend for this doctrine the authority of 
scripture in those wortls of our Saviour, "This is my 
body. '' Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence, 
I shall endeavour to make good these two things. 

1. That there is no necessity of understanding those 
words of our Saviour in the sense of transubstantiation. 

2. That there is a great deal of reason, nay that it is 
very absurd and unreasonable, to understand them other- 
wise. 

First, That there is no necessity to understand those 



172 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

words of the Saviour in the sense of transubstantiation. If 
there be any, it must be from one of these two reasons. 
Either because there are no figurative expressions in 
scripture, which I think no man ever yet said: Or else, 
because a sacrament admits of no figures^ which would 
be very absurd for any man to say, since it is of the 
very nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibit 
some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and 
figure: and especially since it cannot be denied, but 
that in the institution of this very sacrament our Saviour 
useth figurative expressions, and several words which 
cannot be taken strictly and literally. When he gave 
the cup he said, *'This cup is the New Testament in 
my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the 
remission of sins," Where first, the cup is put for the 
luine contained in the cup'^ or else if the words be lite- 
rally tak^n, so as to signify a substantial change, it is 
not of the wine, but of the cup; and that, not into the 
blood of Christy but into the New Testament or New 
Covenant in his blood. Besides, that his blood is said 
then to be shed, and his body to be broken, which was 
not till his passion, which followed the institution and 
first celebration of this sacrament. 

But that there is no necessity to understand our Sa- 
viour's words in the sense of transubstantiation, I will 
take the plain concession of a great number of the most 
learned writers of the church of Rome in this controver- 
sy, Beliarmine,* Suarez,t and Vasquez,J do acknow- 
ledge Scotus the great schoolman to have said that this 
doctrine cannot be evidently proved from scripture: 
and Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable; and 
Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge Durandus|| to have 

♦ De Euch. 1. 3, c. 23. f In 3 dis. 49, Qu. 75, Sect 2. 

% In 3. part. disp. 180. Qu. 75, art. 2. c. 15. 
i In Sent. 1. 4. dist. 11. Qu. 1. n. 15. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 173 

said as much. Ocham,* another famous schoolman, says 
expressly, '*that the doctrine which holds the substance 
of the bread and wine to remain after consecration is 
neither repugnant to reason nor to scripture.'^^ Petrus 
ab Alliaco,t Cardinal of Cambray, says plainly, that 
*Hhe doctrine of the substance of bread and wine re- 
maining after consecration, is more easy and free from 
absurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to 
the authority of scripture ;^'^ nay more, that for the other 
doctrine, viz. of transubstantiation, "there is no evidence 
in scripture, " Gabriel Biel,J another great schoolman 
and divine of their church, freely declares, that ''as to 
any thing expressed in the canon of the scriptures, a 
man may believe that the substance of bread and wine 
doth remain after consecration:" and therefore he re- 
solves the belief of transubstantiation into some other 
revelation, besides scripture, which he supposeth the 
church had about it. Cardinal Cajetan|| confesseth that 
"the gospel doth not here express that the bread is 
changed into the body of Christ; that we have this from 
the authority of the church:" nay, he goes farther, 
''that there is nothing in the gospel which enforceth any 
man to understand these words of Christ, "this is my 
hody^^'^ in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense; but 
the church having understood them in a proper sense 
they are to be so explained:" which words in the Roman 
edition of Cajetan, are expunged by order of Pope Pius 
V.§ Cardinal Contarenus,^ and Mel choir Canus,^'^oneof 
the best and most judicious writers that church ever had, 
reckon this doctrine among those which are not so ex- 
• In 4. Sent. Q. 5. & Quodl. 4. Q. 3. fin 4. Sent. Q. 6. art. 2. 

% In canon Miss. Lect. 40. 

I In Aquin. 3. part Qu. 75. art. 1. 

§ JEgid. Conick. do Sacram. Q. 75. art. 1. n. 13. 

^ De Sacram. L 2, c. 3. ** Loc. Theolog. 1. 3. c. 3. 

Q 



If4 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

pres sly found in scripture, I will add but one more of 
great authority in the church, and a reputed martyr, 
Fisher,* Bishop of Rochester, who ingenuously confes- 
seth that in the words of the institution, there is not one 
word f roan whence the true presence of the flesh and blood 
of Christ in our mass can he proved: so that we need 
not much contend that this doctrine hath no certain 
foundation in scripture, when this is so fully and frankly 
acknowledged by our adversaries themselves. 

Secondly, If there be no necessity of understanding 
our Saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation, 
I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand 
them otherwise. Whether we consider the like expres- 
sions in scripture, as where our Saviour says he is the 
door and the true vine (v/hich the church of Rome w^ould 
mightily have triumphed in, had it been said, this is my 
true body. ) And so likewise v/here the church is said to 
be Christ's body, and the rock which followed the Is- 
raelites to be Christ. t ''They drank of that rock which 
followed them, and that rock was Christ:" all which, 
and innumerable more like expressions in scripture, 
every man understands in a figurative, and not in a 
strictly literal and absurd sense. And it is very well 
known, that in the Hebrew language things are common- 
ly said to be that which they do signify and represent,* 
and there is not in that language a more proper and usual 
way of expressing a thing to signify so and so, than to 
say that it is so and so. Thus Joseph expounding Pha- 
raoh's dream to him, says, ''the seven good kine are 
seven years, and the seven good ears of corn are seven 
yearSjf that is, they signified or represented seven years 
of plenty; and so Phara.oh understood him, and so would 
any man of sense understand the like expressions; nor 

* Contra, captiv. Babylon, c. 10. n. 2. f 1 Cor. x. 4. 

\ Gen. xli. 26. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. If 5 

do I believe that any sensible man who had never heard 
of transubstantiation being grounded upon these words 
of our Saviour, ''this is my body," would, upon reading 
the institution of the sacrament in the gospel ever have 
imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in 
those words; but would have understood his meaning to 
have been this bread signifies my hody^ this cup signi- 
fies my blood; and this which you see me now do, do ye 
hereafter for a memorial of me. But surely it would 
never have entered into any man's mind to have thought 
that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand, 
and give himself for himself with his own hands. Or 
whether we compare these v/ords of our Saviour with the 
ancient form of the Passover used by the Jews from 
Ezra's time, as Justin Martyr* tells us, tato 'to Tioxo* 
o (?coT';7p ^M"^ xai tj xafa^vyfj t^^wj/, "this PaSSOVer is OUr 

Saviour and our refuge." Not that they believed 
the Pascal Lamb to be substantially changed either 
Into God llielrtjaviour, who delivered them o^ '. of the 
land of Egypt, or into the Messias the Saviour whom 
they expected and who was signified by it: But this 
iamb which they did eat, did represent to them, and put 
them in mind of that salvation which God wrought for 
their fathers in Egypt, when by the slaying of a lamb 
and sprinkling the blood of it upon their doors, their 
first-born were passed over and spared; and did like- 
wise foreshew the salvation of Messias, the lamb of God 
that was to take away the sins of the w^orld. 

And nothing is more common in all languages than to 
give the name of the thing signified to the sign: as the 
delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is 
called a conveyance, or making over such an estate, and 
it is really so; not the delivery of mere wax and parch- 
ment, but the conveyance of a real estate, as truly ancj 

* Dialog. cum.Tryp. p, 297. Edit. Paris. 1639o 



17G A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

really, to all eiFects and purposes of law, as if the very 
material houses and lands themselves could be, and were 
actually delivered into my hands: in like manner, the 
names of the things themselves made over to us in the 
new covenant of the gospel between God and man, are 
given to the signs or seals of that covenant. By bap- 
tism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy 
Ghost. Heb. vi. 4. And by the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper we are said to communicate, or to be made par- 
takers of the body of Christ which was broken, and of 
his blood which was shed for us, that is, of the real bene- 
fits of his death and passion. And thus St. Paul speaks 
of this sacrament: (1 Cor. x. 16.) ''The cup of blessing 
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the com- 
munion of the body of Christ .^" But still it is breads and 
he still calls it so: (v. 17.) ''For we being many, are 
one bread and one body^ for we are partakers of that 
one bre| i.'' The church of Rome might;'!/ they pleased^ 
as well argue from hence, that all Christians are sub- 
stantially changed first into bread, and then into the 
natural body of Christ, by their participation of this sa- 
crament, because they are said thereby to be one bread 
and one body. And the same Apostle in the next chap- 
ter, after he had spoken of the consecration of the ele- 
ments, still calls them the bread and the cup^ in three 
verses together: "As often as ye eat this bread and 
drink this cup.'' v. 26. "Whosoever shall eat this bread 
and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily." v. 27. 
"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
that bread and drink of that cup." v. 28. And our Sa- 
viour himself, when he had said, "This is my blood of 
the New Testament," immediately adds, "But I say 
unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the 
vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father's king- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 177 

dom;"* that is, not till after his resurrection, which was 
the first step of his exaltation into the kingdom given 
him by his Father, when the scripture tells us he did 
eat and drink with his disciples. But that which I ob- 
serve from our Saviour's words, is, that after the conse- 
cration of the cup, and the delivering of it to his disci- 
ples to drink of it, he tells them that he would thence- 
forth drink no more of that fruit of the vine, which he 
had now drank with them, till after his resurrection. 
From whence it is plain that it was ik^ fruit ofthevine^ 
real wine, which our Saviour drank of, and communi- 
cated to his disciples in the sacrament. 

Besides, if we consider tha.t he celebrated this sacra- 
ment before his passion, it is impossible that these words 
should be understood literally of the natural body and 
blood of Christy because it was Ms body broken and his 
blood shed which he gave to his disciples, which if we 
understand literally of his natural body broken and his 
bloodshed, then these words, '^This is my body which 
is broken, and this is my blood which is shed," could 
not be true, because his body was then ivhole and un- 
broken^ and his blood not then shed; nor could it be a 
propitiatory sacrifice (as they affirm this sacrament to 
be) unless they will say that propitiation was made be- 
fore Christ suffered: and it is likewise impossible that 
the disciples should understand these words literally, 
because they not only plainly saw that what he gave 
them was bread and wine, but they saw likewise as 
plainly that it was not his body which was given, but 
his body which gave that which was given; not his body 
broken and his blood shed, because they saw him alive 
at that very time, and beheld his body whole and un« 
pierced; and, therefore, they could not understand the 
words literally: if they did, can we imagine that the 
* Matthew, xxvi. 2% 

q2 



17B 



A DISCOURSE AGAINST 



disciples, who upon all other occasions were so full of 
questions and objections, should make no difficulty of 
this matter ? nor so much as ask our Saviour, how can 
these things be ? that they should not^ell him, we see 
this to be bread and that to be wine, and we see thy 
body to be distinct from both; we see thy body not 
broken, and thy blood not shed. 

From all which it must needs be very evident, to any 
man that will impartially consider things, how little rea- 
son there is to understand those words of our Saviour, 
''This is my body, and this is my blood," in the sense 
of transubstantiation; nay, on the contrary, that there 
is very great reason and an evident necessity to under- 
stand them otherwise. I proceed to show. 

Secondly, That this doctrine is not grounded upon 
the perpetual belief of the Christian Churchy which the 
church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the 
church did always understand and interpret our Sa- 
viour's words in this sense. 

To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence, I shall, 
1. Show by plain testimony of the fathers in several 
ages, that this doctrine was not the belief of the ancient 
Christian church. 2. I shall show the time and occa- 
sion of its coming in, and by what degrees it grew up 
and was established in the Roman church. 3. I shall 
answer their great pretended demonstration, that this 
always was and must have been the constant belief of 
the Christian church. 

1. I shall show by plain testimonies of the fathers in 
several ages, for above five hundred years after Christ, 
that this doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chris- 
tian church. I deny not but the fathers do, and that 
with very great reason, very much magnify the wonder- 
ful mystery and efficacy of this sacrament, and fre- 
quently speak of a great supernatural change made by 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 179 

the divine benediction; which we also readily acknow- 
ledge. They say indeed, that the elements of bread 
and wine do by the divine blessing become to us the 
body and blood of Christ: but they likewise say, that 
the names of the things signified are given to the signs; 
that the bread and wine do still remain in their proper 
nature and substance, and that they are turned into the 
substance of our bodies; that the body of Christ in the 
sacrament is nothh natural body, but the sign send Jigure 
of it; not that body which was crucified, nor that blood 
which was shed upon the cross; and that it is impious to 
understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
drinking his blood, literally: all which are directly op- 
posite to the doctrine of transubstantiation, and utterly 
inconsistent with it. I will select some few testimonies 
of many things which I might bring to this purpose. 

I begin with Justin Martyr,* who says expressly that 
''our blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion 
of that food which we receive in the eucharist:" but that 
cannot be the natural body and blood of Christ, for no 
man will say that that is converted into the nourishment 
of our bodies. 

The second is Irenseus,! who speaking of this sacra- 
ment says, that the ''bread which is from the earth, re- 
ceiving the divine invocation, is now no longer common 
bread, but the eucharist (or sacrament) consisting of two 
things, the one earthly, the other heavenly." He says 
it is no longer common bread, but after invocation or 
consecration, it becomes the sacrament, that is, bread 
sanctified, consisting of two things, an earthly and an 
heavenly; the earthly thing is bread, and the heavenly 
is the divine blessing, which by the invocation or con- 
secration is added to it. And elsewhere J he hath this 

* Apol. 2 p. 98. Edit. Paris, 1636. 

t Lib. 4. c. 34. i Lib. 5. c. 21. 



180 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

passage, ''When therefore the cup that is mixed, (that 
is, of wine and water,) and the bread that is broken, 
, receives the word of God, it becomes the eucharist of 
the blood and body of Christ, of which the substance of 
our flesh is increased and consists;" but if that which 
we receive in the sacrament do nourish our bodies, it 
must be bread and wine, and not the natural body and 
blood of Christ. There is another remarkable testimony 
of Irenseus, which though it be not now extant in those 
works of his which remain, yet hath been preserved by 
Oecumenius,'^ and it is this: '' When (says he) the 
Greeks had taken some servants of the Christian cate- 
chumeni, (that is, such as had not been admitted to the 
sacrament,) and afterwards urged them by violence to 
tell them some of the secrets of the Christians, these 
servants having nothing to say that might gratify those 
who offered violence to them, except only that they had 
heard from their masters, that the divine communion was 
the blood and body of Christ, they thinking that it was 
really blood and flesh, declared as much to those that 
questioned them. The Greeks taking this as if it were 
really done by the Christians, discovered it to others of 
the Greeks; who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to 
the torture to make them confess it. To whom Blandina 
boldly answered, ' How could they endure to do this, 
who by way of exercise (or abstinence) do not eat that 
flesh which may lawfully be eaten?' " By which it ap- 
pears, that this which they would have charged upon 
Christians, as if they had literally eaten the flesh and 
blood of Christ in the sacrament, was a false accusation, 
which these martyrs denied, saying they were so far 
from that, that they for their part did not eat any flesh 
at all. (See note 2), in the Appendix.) 

The next is Tertullian, who proves against Marcion 
* Com. in 1 Pet. c. 3. 



TRANSUB STANTIATION. 181 

the heretic, that the body of our Saviour was not a 
mere phantasm and appearance, but a real body, because 
the sacrament is 2i figure and image of his body; and if 
there be an image of his body he must have a real body, 
otherwise the sacrament would be an image of an image. 
His words are these: ''The bread which our Saviour 
took and distributed to his disciples, he made his own bo- 
dy, saying 'this is my body,' that is, the image or figure 
of my body. But it could not have been the figure of 
his body, if there had not been a true and real body."* 
And arguing against the sceptics, who denied the cer- 
tainty of sense, he useth this argument: That if we ques- 
tion our senses, we may doubt whether our blessed Sa- 
viour were not deceived in what he heard, and saw, and 
touched. " He might (says he) be deceived in the voice 
from Heaven, in the smell of the ointment with which 
he was annointed against his burial, and in the taste of 
the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his 
blood, "t So that it seems we are to trust our senses, 
even in the matter of the sacrament: and if that be true, 
the doctrine of transubstantiation is certainly false. 

Origen,± in his Comment on Matth. xv., speaking of 
the sacrament hath this passage: "That food which is 
sanctified by the word of God and prayer; as to that of 
it which is material, goeth into the belly and is cast out 
into the draught," which none will surely say of the 
body of Christ. And afterwards he adds, by way of 
explication, " It is not the matter of the bread, but the 
words which are spoken over it, which profiteth him 
that worthily eateth the Lord; and this (he says) he had 
spoken concerning the typical and symbolical body." 
So that the matter of bread remaineth in the sacrament, 
and this, Origen calls the typical and symbolical body of 

* Advers. Marclonem, 1. 4. p. 571. Edit. Rigal. Paris, 1634, 
f Lib. de Anima, p. 319. i: Edit. Huelii. 



182 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

Christ; and it is not the natural body of Christ which 
is there eaten; for the food eaten in the sacrament, as 
to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and 
is cast out into the draught. This testimony is so very 
plain in the cause, that Sextus Senensis suspects this 
place of Origen was depraved by the heretics. Cardinal 
Perron is contented to allow it to be Origen's, but re- 
jects his testimony because he was accused of heresy by 
some of the fathers, and says he talks like a heretic in 
this place. So that with much ado this testimony is 
yielded to us. The same father, in his Homilies upon 
Leviticus,* speaks thus: ''There is also in the New 
Testament, a letter which kills him who doth not spirit- 
ually uudei'stand those things which are said; for if we 
take according to the letter that which is said, except 

YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD, this letter 

kills." And this also is a killing testimony, and not to 
be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way, by saying 
.*'Ae tallts like a heretic,'^^ 

St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle^ to Cecilius,t against 
those who gave the communion in water only without 
wine mingled with it; and his main argument against 
them is this, that " the blood of Christ with which we 
are redeemed and quickened cannot seem to be in the 
cup, when there is no wine in the cup by which the blood 
of Christ is represented.^^ And afterwards he says, that 
''contrary to the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, 
water was in some places offered (or given) in the Lord's 
cup, which" (says he) "alone cannot express (or repre- 
sent) the blood of Christ." And lastly he tells us, that 
' ' by water the people is understood, by wine the blood 
of Christ is shown, (or represented,) but when in the 
cup water is mingled with wine, the people are united 
to Christ." So that, according to this argument, wine 
* Cap. 10. t Ep. 65. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 183 

in the sacramental cup is no otherwise changed into the 
blood of Christ, than the water mixed with it is changed 
into the people, which are said to be united to Christ 
I omit many others, and pass to St. Austin, in the 
fourth age after Christ. And I the rather insist upon 
his testimony, because of his eminent esteem and au- 
thority in the Latin church; and he also calls the ele- 
ments of the sacrament, the ''Jigure^nd sign of Christ's 
body and blood. " In his book against Adamantus the 
manichee, we have this expression: ''Our Lord did not 
doubt to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of 
his body."* And in his explication of the third psalm, 
speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last 
supper, ''in which (says he) he commended and deliv- 
ered to his disciples the figure of his body:"t language 
which would now be censured for heresy in the church 
of Rome. Indeed he was never accused of heresy, as 
Cardinal Perron says Origen was, but he talks as like 
one, as Origen himself. And in his comment on the 98th 
psalm, speaking of the offence which the disciples took 
at that saying of our Saviour, ' ' Except ye eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man, and drink his blood," &c., he brings 
in our Saviour speaking thus to them: "Ye must under- 
stand SPIRITUALLY, what I havc said unto you; ye are not 

TO EAT THIS BODY whlch YE SEE^aud tO drink THAT BLOOD 

which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me. I 
have commended a certain sacrament to you, which be- 
ing spiritually understood will give you life. "1 What 
more opposite to the doctrine of transubstantiation, than 
that the disciples were not to eat that body of Christ 
which they saw, nor to drink that blood which was shed 
upon the cross, but that all this was to be understood 
spiritually, and according to the nature of a sacrament.^ 

* Au^. Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit. Basil, 1596. 

t Enarrat.in Psal. Tom. 8. p, 16. i Id. Tom. 9. p. 1105. 



184 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

for that body, he tells us, is not here but in Heaven, in 
his comment upon these words, "Me ye have not al- 
ways:" *'He speaks (says he) of the presence of his 
body: ye shall have me according to my providence, 
according to majesty and invisible graces but accord- 
ing to the flesh which the word assumed, according 
to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not 
have me: therefore, because he conversed with his dis- 
ciples forty days, he is ascended up into Heaven, and is 
not here.''"^ 

In his twenty-third Epistle :t ''If the sacrament (says 
he) had not some resemblance of those things whereof 
they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at 
all; but from this resemblance they take for the most 
part the names of the things which they represent. 
Therefore, as the sacrament of the body of Christ is, 
in some manner or sense, Christ's body, and the sa- 
crament of his blood is the blood of Christ; so the sacra- 
ment of faith (meaning baptism) is faith." Upon which 
works of St. Austin, there is this remarkable gloss in 
their own canon law: J ''The heavenly sacrament, which 
truly represents the flesh of Christ, is called the body 
of Christ, but improperly: whence it is said, that after 
a manner, but not according to the truth of the thing, 
but the mystery of the thing, signified; so that the mean- 
ing is, it is called the body of Christ, that is, it signifies 
the body of Christ." And if this be St. Austin's mean- 
ing, I am sure no Protestant can speak more plainly 
against transubstantiation. And in the ancient canon of 
the mass, before it was changed in compliance with this 
new doctrine, it is expressly called a sacrament, a sign^ 
an image, and a figure of Christ's body, To which I 
will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin, cited by 

* Id. Tract. 50. in Joan. f Id. Torn. 2. p. 93. 

4: De Consecrat. dist. 2. Hoc est. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 185 

Gratian:* '*That as we receive the similitude of his 
death in baptism, so we may also receive the likeness 
of his flesh and blood, that so neither may truth be want- 
ing in the sacrament, nor Pagans have occasion to make 
us ridiculous for drinking the blood of one that was 
slain.'' 

I will mention but one testimony more of this father, 
but so clear a one, as it is impossible that any man in 
his wits that had believed transubstantiation could have 
uttered. It is in his Treatise "de doctrina Christiana;^^^ 
where laying down several rules for the right under- 
standing of scripture, he gives this for one: "If (says 
he) the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous 
wickedness or crime, or commanding us to do good, it 
is not figurative^ but if it seem to command any heinous 
wickedness or crime, or to forbid that which is profitable 
or beneficial to others, it is figurative. For example, 
' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
his blood, ye have no life in you. ' This seems to com- 
mand a heinous wickedness and crime, therefore, it is a 
figure; commanding us to communicate of the passion 
of our Lord, and with delight and advantage to lay up 
in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded 
for us." So that, according to St. Austin's best skill 
in interpreting scripture, the literal eating of the flesh 
of Christ, and drinking his blood, would have been a 
great impiety; and therefore, the expression is to be 
understood figuratively; not as Cardinal Perron would 
have it, only in opposition to the eating of his flesh and 
blood in the gross appearance of flesh and blood, but to 
the real eating of his natural body and blood under any 
appearance whatsoever: for St. Austin does not say, 
that this is a figurative speech, wherein we are com- 

• De Consecrat. dist. 2. Sect. Utrum. 
fLib. 3. Tom.3. p. 53. 

R 



186 



A DISCOURSE AGAINST 



manded really to feed upon the natural body and blood 
of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, as the 
Cardinal would understand him; for then the speech 
would be literal and not figurative: but he says, this is 
z. figurative speech, wherein we are commanded spirit- 
ually to feed upon the remembrance of his passion. 

To these I will add but three or four testimonies more, 
in the two following ages. 

The first shall be of Theodoret, who speaking of that 
prophecy of Jacob* concerning our Saviour, ''he washed 
his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of 
grapes," hath these words: ''As we call the mystical 
fruit of the vine (that is, the wine in the sacrament) after 
consecration the blood of the Lord, so he (viz. Jacob) 
calls the blood of the true vine (viz. of Christ) the blood 
of the grape :"t but the blood of Christ is not literally 
and properly, but only figuratively, the blood of the 
grape, in the same sense as he is said to be the true vine; 
and, therefore, the wine in the sacrament after conse- 
cration is in like manner not literally and properly, but 
figuratively, the blood of Christ. And he explains this 
afterwards, saying that "our Saviour changed the names, 
and gave to his body tjie name of the symbol or sign, 
and to that symbol or sign the name of his body; thus 
when he called himself the vine, he called the symbol 
or sign his blood:" so that in the same sense that he 
called himself the vine, he called the wine, which is the 
symbol of his blood, his blood: ''For (says he) he would 
have those who partake of the divine mysteries, not to 
attend to the nature of the things which are seen, but 
by the change of names to believe the change which is 
made by Grace; for he who called that which by nature 
is a body, wheat and bread, and again likewise called 
himself the vine, he honoured the symbols with the name 
* Gen. 49. 11. f Dialogue 1. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 187 

of his body and blood; not changing nature, but adding 
grace to nature." Where you see he says expressly, 
that when he called the symbols or elements of the sa- 
crament, viz. bread and wine, his body and blood, he 
made no change in the nature of the things, only added 
grace to nature, that is, by the divine grace and blessing 
he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural virtue and 

^ ThT'second is of the Same Theodoret, in his second 
dialogue between a Catholic under the name of Ortho- 
doxus, and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes; who 
maintaining that the humanity of Christ was changed 
into the substance of the divinity, (which was the heresy 
of Eutyches,) he illustrates the matter by this similitude: 
' 'As (says he) the symbols of the Lord's body and blood 
are one thing before the invocation of the priest, but 
after the invocation are changed and become another 
thing; so the body of our Lord, after his ascension, is 
changed into the divine substance." But what says the 
Catholic orthodoxus to this? why, he talks just like one 
of Cardinal Perron's heretics: "Thou art (says he) 
caught in thine own net, because the mystical symbols 
after consecration do not pass out of their own nature; 
for they remain in their former substance, figure and 
appearance, and may be seen and handled even as be- 
fore." He does not only deny the outward figure and 
appearance of the symbols to be changed, but the nature 
and substance of them, even in the proper and strictest 
sense of the word substance; and it was necessary so 
to do, otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to 
the similitude urged against him. 

The next is one of their own popes, Gelasius, who 
brings the same instance against the Eutychians :* 
"Surely (says he) the sacraments which we receive of 
* Biblioth. Pat. Tom, 4. 



188 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

the body and blood of our Lord are a divine thing, so 
that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature, 
and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of 
bread and wine; and certainly the image and resem- 
blance of Christ's body and blood, are celebrated in the 
action of the mysteries;'' that is, in the sacrament. To 
make this instance of any force against the Eutychians, 
who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension 
ceased, and was changed into the substance of his di- 
vinity, it was necessary to deny that there was any sub- 
stantial change in the sacrament of bread and wine into 
the body and blood of Christ. So that here is an infal- 
lible authority, one of their own popes, expressly against 
transubstantiation. 

The last testimony I shall produce is of Facundus, 
an African Bishop, who lived in the ^ixth century. 
Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who 
had said that ^'Christ also received the adoption of sons," 
he reasons thus:^ ''Christ vouchsafed to receive the sa- 
crament of adoption, both when he was circumcised and 
baptised : and the sacrament of adoption may be called 
adoption, as the sacrament of his body and blood, which 
is in the consecrated bread and cup, is by us called his 
body and blood; 7iot that the bread (says he) is properly 
his body^ and the cup his bloody but because they con- 
tain in them the mysteries of his body and blood : hence 
our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup, which 
he gave to his disciples, his body and blood." Can any 
man after this believe, that it was then, and had ever 
been, the universal and received doctrine of the Chris- 
tian church, that the bread and wine in the sacrament, 
are substantially changed into the proper and natural 
body and blood of Christ ? 

By these plain testimonies which I have produced, 
* Facund. p. 144. Edit, Paris, 1676. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 189 

and I might have brought a great many more to the 
same purpose, it is I think evident beyond all denial, 
that transubstantiation has not been the perpetual belief 
of the Christian church. And this likewise, is acknow- 
ledged by many great and learned men of the Roman 
church. Scotus* acknowledgeth, that this doctrine was 
not always thought necessary to be believed, but that 
the necessity of believing it was consequent to that de- 
claration of the church, made in the Council of Lateran, 
under Pope Innocent III. And Durandust freely dis- 
covers his inclination to have believed the contrary^ if 
the Church had not by that determination obliged men 
to believe it. Tonstal,f Bishop of Durham, also yields, 
that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as 
to the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament. 
And Erasmus, II who lived and died in the communion of 
the Roman church, and than whom no man w^as better 
read in the ancient fathers, doth confess that it was late 
before the Church defined transubsta7itiation, unknown 
to the ancients, both name and thing. And Alphonsus 
a Castro § says plainly, that '' concerning the transub- 
stantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, there is 
seldom any mention in the ancient ivriters.^^ And who 
can imagine, that these learned men w^ould have granted 
the ancient church and fathers, to have been so much 
strangers to this doctrine, had they thought it to have 
been the perpetual belief of the Church ? I shall now, 
in the 

Second place, give an account of the particular time 

* In sent. 1. 4. dist. 11. q. 3. 
t In sent. 1. 4. dist. 11 . q. 1. n. 15. 
t De Euchar. 1. 1. p. 146. 

§ In 1 Epist. ad. Corinth, c. 7. citanle etiam Salmerone, 
Tom. 9. Tract. 16. p. 108. 
B De Haeres. 1. 8. 



190 A BISCOURSE AGAINST 

and occasion of the coming in of this doctrine, and by 
what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced in- 
to an article of faith in the Romish church. The doc- 
trine of the corporeal presence of Christ was first started 
upon occasion of the dispute about the worship of im- 
ages, in opposition whereto the synod of Constantinople 
about the year 750 did argue thus, that our Lord having 
left us no other image of himself but the sacrament, in 
which the substance of bread is the image of his body, 
we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In an- 
swer to this argument, the second council of Nice, in the 
year 787, did declare, that the sacrament after consecra- 
tion is not the image and anti-type of Christ's body and 
blood, but is properly his body and blood. So that the 
corporeal presence of the body of Christ in the sacra- 
ment was first brought in to support the stupid worship 
of images : and indeed it could never have come in upon 
a more proper occasion, nor have been applied to a fitter 
purpose. 

And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees 
with Bellarmine's* observation, "that none of the an- 
cients who wrote of heresies, hath put this error, (viz. 
of denying transubstantiation,) in his catalogue^ nor did 
any of the ancients dispute against this error for the first 
600 years,'' Which is very true, because there could 
be no occasion then to dispute against those who denied 
transubstantiation, since, as I have shewn, this doctrine 
was not in being, unless among the Eutychian heretics, 
for the first 600 years and more. But Bellarminet goes 
on and tells us, that "the first who called in question 
the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were 
the icoNOiViACHi, (the opposers of images,) after the year 
700, in the council of Constantinople; for these said 
there was one image of Christ instituted by Christ him- 

* De Euchar. 1. 1. c. 1. flbid. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 191 

self, viz: the bread and wine in the Eucharist, which 
represents the body and blood of Christ: wherefore from 
that time the Greek writers often admonish us that the 
Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the 
Lord, but his true body, as appears from the YII. Sy- 
nod;" which agrees most exactly with the account 
which I have given of the first rise of this doctrine, 
which began with the corporeal presence of Christ in 
the sacrament, and afterwards proceeded to transub- 
stantiation. 

And as this was the first occasion of introducing this 
doctrine among the Greeks, so in the Latin or Roman 
church, Paschasius Radbertus, first a monk, and after- 
wards abbot of Corbey, was the first broacher of it in 
the year 818. 

And for this, besides the evidence of history, we have 
the acknowledgment of two very eminent persons in the 
church of Rome, Bellarmine and Sirmondus, who do in 
effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who 
wrote to purpose upon this argument. Bellarmine,* in 
these words, 'Hhis author was the first who hath serious- 
ly and copiously written concerning the truth of Christ's 
body and blood in the Eucharist." And Sirmondust in 
these, •'^He so first explained the genuine sense of the 
Catholic church, that he opened the way to the rest who 
afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same argu- 
ment." But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he 
only first explained the sense of the Catholic church in 
this point, yet it is very plain from the records of that 
age which are left to us, that this was the first time that 
this doctrine v/as broached in the Latin church; and it 
met with great opposition in that age, as I shall have oc- 
casion hereafter to shew. For Rabanus Maurus, Arch- 
bishop of Mentz, about the year 847, reciting the very 

* Dc Scriptor Ecclcs. f In vita Paschasii. 



192 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

words of Paschasius, wherein he had delivered this doc- 
trine, hath this remarkable passage concerning the novel- 
ty of it. ''Some," says he, ''of late not having a right 
opinion concerning the sacrament of the body and blood 
of our L ord, have said that this is the body and blood 
of our Lord, which was born of the virgin Mary, and in 
which our Lord suffered upon the cross and rose from 
the dead: which error ^^^ says he, ''we have opposed with 
all our might." From whence it is plain, by the testi- 
mony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of 
that age, and of eminent reputation for piety, that what 
is now the very doctrine of the church of Rome concern- 
ing the sacrament, was then esteemed an error broached 
by some particular persons, but was far from being the 
generally received doctrine of that age. Can any one 
think it possible that so eminent a person in the church, 
both for piety and learning, could have condemned this 
doctrine as an error and a novelty, had it been the 
general doctrine of the Christian church, not only in 
that, but in all former ages: and no censure passed upon 
him for that which is now the great burning article in 
the church of Rome, and esteemed by them one of the 
greatest and most pernicious heresies.^ 

Afterwards in the year 1059, when Berengarius in 
France and Germany had raised a fresh opposition 
against this doctrine, he was compelled to recant it by 
Pope Nicholas and^the council at Rome, in these words,* 
"That the bread and wine which are set upon the altar, 
after the consecration, are not only the sacrament, but 
the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christy and 
are sensibly, not only in the sacrament, but in truth, 
handled and broken by the hands of the priest, and 
* Gratian. de Consecrat. distuict. 2. Lanfranc. de corp. & sang. 
Domini, c. 5. Guil. mun. de Sacram. AJgar. de Sacram. 1. 1. 
c. 19. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 193 

ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithful. " But it 
seems the Pope and his council were not then skilful 
enough to express themselves rightly in this matter; for 
the gloss upon the canon law says expressly,* ^*That 
unless we understand these words of Berengarius, 
(that is in truth of the Pope and his council) in a sound 
sense, we shall fall into a greater heresy than that of 
Berengarius; for we do not make parts of the body of 
Christ. " The meaning of which gloss I cannot imagine, 
unless it be this, That the body of Christ, though it be 
in truth broken^ yet it is not broken into parts^ (for we 
do not make parts of the body of Christ,) but into wholes. 
Now this new way of breaking a body^ not into parts^ 
but into wholes, (which in good earnest is the doctrine 
of the church of Rome) though to them that are able to 
believe transubstantiation, it may for any thing I know 
appear to be sound sense, yet to us that cannot believe 
so, it appears to be solid nonsense. 

About twenty years after, in the year 1079, Pope 
Gregory the VII. began to be sensible of this absurdity; 
and therefore in another council at Rome, made Beren- 
garius to recant in another form, viz:t ''That the 
bread and wine which are placed upon the altar, are 
substantially changed into the true and proper and 
quickning flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
after consecration, are the true body of Christ, which 
was born of the virgin, and which being offered for the 
salvation of the world, did hang upon the cross, and sits 
at the right hand of the Father.'' 

So that from the first starting of this doctrine in the 
second council of Nice, in the year 787, till the council 
under Pope Gregory the VIL in the year 1079, it was 
almost three hundred years that this doctrine was con- 

* Glos. Decret. de consecrat. dist. 2. in cap. Ego Berengariug. 
tWaldens. To.l.c. 13. 



194 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

tested, and before this misshapen monster of transub- 
stantiation could be licked into that form in which it is 
now settled and established in the church of Rome. 
Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this doc- 
trine, and of the several steps whereby it was advanced 
by the church of Rome into an article of faith. I come 
now in the 

Third place, to answer the great pretended demon- 
stration of 'Hhe impossibility that this doctrine, if it had 
been new, should ever have come in in any age, and 
been received in the church: and consequently it must 
of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the- church 
in all ages. " For if it had not always been the doctrine 
of the church, whenever it had attempted first to come 
in, there would have been a great stir and bustle about 
it, and the whole Christian world would have rose up in 
opposition to it. But we can shew no such time when 
it first came in, and when any such opposition was made 
to it, and therefore it was always the doctrine of the 
church. This demonstration. Monsieur Arnauld, a very 
learned man in France, pretends to be unanswerable: 
Whether it be so or not I shall briefly examine. And 

First, we do assign a punctual and very likely time 
of the first rise of this doctrine, about the beginning of 
the ninth age^ though it did not take firm root, nor was 
fully settled and established till tow^ards the end of the 
eleventh. And this was the most likely time of all 
other, from the beginning of Christianity, for so gross 
an error to appear^ it being, by the confession and con- 
sent of their own historians, the most dark and dismal 
time that ever happened to the Christian church, both 
for ignorance and superstition and vice. It came in to- 
gether with idolatry, and was made use of to support it: 
a fit prop and companion for it. And indeed w^hat tares 
might not the enemy have sown in so dark and long a 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 195 

nightj when so considerable apartof the Christian world 
was lulled asleep in profound ignorance and supersti- 
tion? And this agrees very well with the account which 
our Saviour himself gives in the parable of the tares, of 
the springing up of errors and corruptions in the field of 
the church. While the men slept,* the enemy did his 
work in the night, sa that when they were awake they 
wondered how and whence the tares came^ but being sure 
they were there, and that they were not sown at first, 
they concluded ''the enemy had done it." 

Secondly, I have shewn likewise that there was con- 
siderable opposition made to this error in its first coming 
in. The general ignorance and gross superstition of 
that age rendered the generality of people more quiet 
and secure, and disposed them to receive any thing that 
came under a pretence of mystery in religion, and of a 
greater reverence and devotion to the sacrament, and 
that seemed any way to countenance the worship of 
images, for which at that time they were zealously con- 
cerned. But notwithstanding the security and passive 
temper of the people, the men most eminent for piety 
and learning in that time made great resistance against 
it. I have already named Rabanus, Archbishop of 
Mentz, who opposed it as an error lately sprung up, and 
which had then gained but upon some few persons. To 
whom I may add Heribaldus, bishop of iVuxerres, in 
France, Jo. Scotus, Erigena, and Ratramnus, commonly 
known by the name of Bertram, who at the same time 
were employed by the emperor Charles the Bald, to op- 
pose this growing error, and wrote learnedly against it. 
And these were the eminent men for learning in that 
time. And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be sat- 
isfied unless there were some stir and bustle about it, 
Bertram, in his preface to his book tells us, that ''they 
• * Matt, xii. 24. 



196 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

who according to their several opinions talked different- 
ly about the mystery of Christ's body and blood were 
divided by no small schism." 

Thirdly, Though for a more clear and satisfactory 
answer to this pretended- demonstration, I have been 
contented to untie this knot; yet I could without all 
these pains have cut it. For suppose this doctrine had 
silently come in and without opposition, so that we could 
not assign the particular time and occasion of its first 
rise; yet if it be evident from the records of former 
ages for above five hundred years together, that this was 
not the ancient belief of the church, and plain also, that 
this doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman 
church, though we could not tell how and when it came 
in, yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant 
thing in the world to set up a pretended demonstration 
of reason against plain experience and matter of fact. 
This isjustZeno's demonstration of the impossibility of 
motion against Diogenes walking before his eyes. For 
this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have 
been, which most certainly was. Just thus the servants 
in the parable might have demonstrated that the tares 
were wheat, because they were sure none but good seed 
was sown at first, and no man could give any account 
of the punctual time when any tares were sown, or by 
whom; and if an enemy had come to do it, he must 
needs have met with great resistance and opposition; but 
no such resistance was made, and therefore there could 
be no tares in the field, but that which they called tares 
was certainly good wheat. At the same rate, a man 
might demonstrate that our king, his majesty of Great 
Britian, is not returned into England, nor restored to 
his crown, because there being so great and powerful an 
army possessed of his lands, and thierefore obliged by 
interest to keep him out, it was impossible he should 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 197 

ever come in without a great deal of fighting and blood- 
shed; but there was no such thing, therefore he is not 
returned and restored to his crown. And by the like 
kind of demonstration one might prove that the Turk 
did not invade Christendom last year, and besiege 
Vienna; because if he had, the most Christian king, 
who had the greatest army in Christendom in a readi- 
ness, would certainly have employed it against him; but 
Monsieur Arnauld certainly knows that no such thing 
was done, and therefore according to his way of demon- 
stration, the matter of fact, so commonly reported and 
believed, concerning the Turk's invasion of Christendom 
and besieging Vienna last year, was a perfect mistake. 
- But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ache, 
before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly 
is, or w as, never to have been. For of all sorts of im- 
possibles, nothing is more evidently so, than to make 
that which hath been, not to have been. All the reason 
in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and ob- 
stinate a difficulty. And I have often wondered how a 
man of Monsieur Arnauld's great wit and sharp judg- 
ment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and 
baffled a cause; or could think to defend it with so wooden 
a dagger as his demonstration of reason against certain 
experience and matter offact^ a thing, if it be possible, 
of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate, 
transubstantiation itself. I proceed to the 

Third pretended ground of this doctrine of transub- 
stantiation; and that is, the infallible authority of the 
present church to make and declare new articles of faith. 
And this in truth is the ground into which most of 
the learned men of their church did heretofore, and 
many do still resolve their belief of this doctrine: and, 
as I have already shewn, do plainly say that they see no 
sufficient reason, either from scripture or tradition, for 

s 



198 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

the belief of it: and that they should have believed the 
contrary had not the determination of the church obliged 
them otherwise. 

But if this doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely 
by virtue of the authority of the Roman church, and the 
declaration of the council under Pope Gregory YII. or 
of the Lateran council under Innocent III. then it is a 
plain innovation in the Christian doctrine, and a new 
article of faith imposed upon the Christian world. And 
if any church hath this power, the Christian faith may 
be enlarged and changed as often as men please; and 
that which is no part of our Saviour's doctrine; nay, any 
thing, though never so absurd and unreasonable, may 
become an article of faith, obliging all Christians to the 
belief of it, whenever the church of Rome shall think fit 
to stamp her authority upon it, w^hich would make Chris- 
tianity a most uncertain and endless thing. 

The fourth pretended ground of this doctrine is, the 
necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament to 
the comfort and benefit of those who receive it. But 
there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly con- 
sidered: because the comfort and benefit of the sacra- 
ment depend upon the blessing annexed to the institu- 
tion. And as water in baptism, wdthout any substantial 
change made in that element, may by the divine blessing 
accompanying the institution be effectual to the washing 
away of sin, and spiritual regeneration; so there can no 
reason in the world be given why the elements of bread 
and wine in the Lord's supper may not, by the same di- 
vine blessing accompanying this institution, make the 
worthy receivers partakers of all the spiritual comfort 
and benefit designed to us thereby, without any substan- 
tial change made in those elements, since our Lord hath 
told us, that verily the flesh profiteth nothing. So that 
if we could do sq odd and strange a thing as to eat the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 199 

very natural flesh and drink the blood of our Lord, I 
do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us 
than what we may have by partaking of the symbols of 
his body and blood as he hath appointed in remembrance 
of him. For the spiritual efficacy of the sacrament doth 
not depend upon the nature of the thing received, sup- 
posing we receive what our Lord appointed, and receive 
it with a right preparation and disposition of mind, but 
upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it, 
and makes it effectual to those spiritual ends for which 
it was appointed. 

The fifth and last pretended ground of this doctrine is, 
to magnify the potver of the priest in being able to work 
so great a miracle. And this with great pride and pomp 
is often urged by them as a transcendent instance of 
the divine wisdom, to find out so admirable a way to 
raise the power and reverence of the priest^ that he 
should be able every day, and as often as he pleases, by 
repeating a few words, to work so miraculous a change, 
and (as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to 
speak) to make God himself 

But this is to pretend to a power above that of God 
himself, for he did not, nor cannot make himself, nor 
do any thing that implies a contradiction, as transubstan- 
tiation evidently does in their pretending to make God, 
For to make that which already is, and make that now 
which always was, is not only vain and trifling if it 
could be done, but impossible because it implies a con- 
tradiction. 

And what if after all, transubstantiation, if it were pos- 
sible and actually wrought by the priest, would yet be 
no miracle; for there are two things necessary to a mi- 
racle, that there be a supernatural effect wrought, and 
that this effect be evident to sense. So that though a 
supernatural effect be wrought, yet if it be not evident 



200 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

to sense, it is to all the ends and purposes of a miracle 
as if it were not; and can be no testimony or proof of 
any thing, because itself stands in need of another mi- 
racle to give testimony to it, and to prove that it was 
wrought. And neither in scripture, nor in profane au- 
thors, nor in common use of speech, is any thing called 
a miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses: 
a miracle being nothing else but a sKpernatural effect evi- 
dent to sense^ the great end and design whereof, is to be 
a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that 
we do not see. 

And for want of this condition, transubstantiation, if 
it were true, would be no miracle. It would indeed be 
very supernatural hwi for all that, it would not be a sign 
or miracle: for a sign or miracle is always a thing sen- 
sible, otherwise it could be no sign. Now that such a 
change as is pretended in transubstantiation, should 
really be wrought, and yet there should be no sign and 
appearance of it, is a thing very wonderful, but not to 
sense; for our senses perceive no change, the bread and 
wine in the sacrament to all our senses remaining just 
as they were before: and that a thing should remain to 
all appearance just as it was, hath nothing at all of won- 
der in it; we wonder indeed when we see a strange 
thing done, but no man wonders when he sees nothing 
done. So that transubstantiation, if they will needs 
have it a miracle, is such a miracle as any man may 
work that hath but the confidence to face men down that 
he works it, and the fortune to be believed; and though 
this church of Rome may magnify their priests upon ac- 
count of this miracle, which they say they can work 
every day and every hour, yet I cannot understand the 
reason of it; for when this great work (as they call it) is 
done, there is nothing more appears to be done than if 
there were no miracle: now such a miracle as to all ap- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. £01 

pearance, is no miracle, I see no reason why a Protestant 
minister, as well as Popish priest, may not work as of- 
ten as he pleases; or if he can but have the patience to 
let it alone, it will work itself. For surely nothing in 
the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is, and by 
speaking a few words over it, to make it just what it was 
before. Every man, every day, may work ten thousand 
such miracles. 

And thus I have dispatched the first part of my dis- 
course, which was to consider the pretended grounds 
and reasons of the church of Rome for this doctrine, and 
to shew the weakness and insufficiency of them. I come 
in^the 

Second place, to produce our objections against it. 
Which will be of so much the greater force, because I 
have already shewn this doctrine to be destitute of all 
divine warrant and authority, and of any other sort of 
ground sufficient in reason to justify it. So that I do 
not now object against a doctrine which has a fair prob- 
ability of divine revelation on its side, for that would 
weigh down all objections, which did not plainly over- 
throw the probability and credit of its divine revelation : 
but I object against a doctrine, by the mere will and ty- 
ranny of men imposed upon the belief of Christians, 
without any evidence of Scripture, and against all the 
evidence of reason and sense. 

The objections I shall reduce to these two heads. 
First, The infinite scandal of this doctrine to the Chris- 
tian religion. And secondly, the monstrous and insup- 
portable absurdity of it. 

First, The infinite scandal of this doctrine to the Chris- 
tian religion. And that upon these four accounts: 1. 
Of the stupidity of this doctrine. £. The real barba- 
rousness of this sacrament and rite of our religion upon 
supposition of the truth of this doctrine. 3. Of the 

s£ 



20£ A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

cruel and bloody consequences of it. 4. Of the danger 
of idolatry; which thej are certainly guilty of, if this 
doctrine be not true. 1. Upon account of the stupidity 
of this doctrine. I remember that Tully, who was a 
man of very good sense, instanceth in the conceit" of eat- 
ing God as the extremity of madness, and so stupid an 
apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of. 
''When we call," says he,* ''the fruits of the earth 
Ceres, and wine Bacchus, we use but the common 
language; but do you think any man so mad as to 
believe that which he eats to be God?" It seems he 
could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever 
entered into the mind of man. It is a very severe say- 
ing of Averroes, the Arabian philosopher, (who lived 
after this doctrine was entertained among Christians,) 
and ought to make the church of Rome blush if she can; 
"I have travelled," says he,t ''over the world, and 
have found divers sects; but so sottish a sect or law 
I never found, as is the sect of the Christians; because 
with their own teeth they devour their God whom 
they worship." It was great stupidity in the people of 
Israel to say, "Come let us make us gods;" but it was 
civilly said of them, "Let us make us gods that may go 
before us^^^ in comparison of the church of Rome,, who 
say, "Let us make a god that we may eat hiin,^^ S9 
that upon the w^iole matter I cannot but wonder that 
they should chuse thus to expose faith to the contempt 
of all that are endued with reason. And to speak the 
plain truth, the Christian religion was never so horribly 
exposed to the scorn of atheists and infidels, as it hath 
been by this most absurd and senseless doctrine. But 
thus it was foretold thatj: "the man of sin should come 
with power and signs and lying miracles, and with all 

* De Nat. Deorum, 1. 3. 

f pionys. Carthus. in. 4. dist, 10. art. 1. +2 Thess. ii. 10. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION'. £03 

deceivableness of unrighteousness," with all the leger- 
demain 3Xid juggliiig tricks of falsehood and imposture; 
amongst which this of transubstantiation, which they call 
a miracle, and we a cheats is one of the chief: and in all 
probability those common juggling words of "Hocus- 
pociis^^^ are nothing else but a corruption of "Hoc est 
corpus,^^ by way of ridiculous imitation of the Priests 
of the church of Rome in their trick of transubstantia- 
tion. Into such contempt by this foolish doctrine and 
pretended miracle of theirs, have they brought the most 
sacred and venerable mystery of our religion. 

2. It is very scandalous likewise upon account of the 
real barbarousness of this sacrament and rite of our re- 
ligion, upon supposition of the truth of this doctrine. 
Literally to eat the flesh of the son of man and to drink 
his blood, St. Austin, as I have shewed before, declares 
to be a great impiety. And the impiety and barbarous- 
ness of the thing is not in truth extenuated, but only the 
appearance of it, by its being done under the species of 
bread and wine; for the thing they acknowledge is really 
done, and they believe that they verily eat and drink 
the natural flesh and blood of Christ. And v/hat can 
any man do more unworthily towards his friend.^ Hov/ 
can he possibly use him more barbarously, than to feast 
upon his living flesh and blood? It is one of the greatest 
wonders in the world, that it should ever enter into the 
minds of men to put upon our Saviour's words, so easilv 
capable of a more convenient sense, and so necessarily 
requiring it, a meaning so plainly contrary to reason and 
sense, and even to humanity itself. Had the ancient 
Christians owned any such doctrine, we should have 
heard it from the adversaries of our religion in every 
page of their writings; and they would have desired no 
greater advantage against the Christians, than to have 
been able to hit them in the teeth with their feasting 



204 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

upon the natural flesh and blood of their Lord, and their 
God, and their best friend. AVhat endless triumphs 
would they have made upon this subject? And with what 
confidence would they have set the cruelty used by 
Christians in their sacrament, against their God Sa- 
turn' eating his own children, and all the cruel and 
bloody rites of their idolatry? But that no such thing 
was then objected by the heathens to the Christians, is 
to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations that 
no such doctrine was then believed. 

3. It is scandalous also upon account of the cruel and 
bloody consequences of this doctrine; so contrary to the 
plain laws of Christianity, and to one great end and de- 
sign of this sacrament, which is to unite Clnristians in 
the most perfect love and charity to one another: where- 
as this doctrine hath been the occasion of the most bar- 
barous and bloody tragedies that ever were acted in the 
world. For this hath been in the church of Rome the 
great burning article: and as absurd and unreasonable as 
it is, more Christians have been murdered for the denial 
of it than perhaps for all the other articles of their reli- 
gion. And I think it may generally pass for a true ob- 
servation, that all sects are commonly most hot and fu- 
rious for those things for which there is least reason; 
for what men want of reason for their opinions, they 
usually supply and make up in rage. And it was no 
more than needed to use this severity upon this occa- 
sion; for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in 
probability, have driven so great a part of mankind into 
the acknowledgment of so unreasonable and senseless a 
doctrine. 

O blessed Saviour! thou best friend and greatest lo- 
ver of mankind, who can imagine thou didst ever intend 
that men should kill one another for not being able to 
believe contrary to their senses: for being unwilling to 



TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 205 

think, that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid 
and barbarous things that can be imagined a main duty 
and principal mystery of thy religion; for not flattering 
the pride and presumption of the priest who says he can 
make God, and for not complying with the folly and stu- 
pidity of the people who are made to believe that they 
can eat him? 

4. Upon account of the danger of idolatry; which 
they are certainly guilty of, if this doctrine be not true, 
and such a change as they pretend be not made in the 
sacrament; for if it be not, then they worship a creature 
instead of the Creator, God blessed for ever. But 
such a change I have shown to be impossible; or if 
it could be, yet they can never be certain that it is, 
and consequently are always in danger of idolatry: 
and that they can never be certain that such a change 
is made, is evident; because, acccording to the ex- 
press determination of the Council of Trent, that 
depends upon the mind and intention of the priest^ 
which cannot certainly be known but by revelation, 
which is not pretended in this case. And if they 
be mistaken in this change, through the knavery or 
crossness of the priest, who will not make God but 
when he thinks fit, they must not think to excuse 
themselves from idolatry because they intended to 
worship God and not a creature; for so the Persians 
might be excused from idolatry in worshipping the sun, 
because they intend to worship God and not a creature; 
and so indeed we may excuse all the idolatry that ever 
was in the world, which is nothing else but a mistake of 
the Deity, and upon that mistake, a worshipping of some- 
thing as God which is not God. 

Secondly. Besides the infinite scandal of this doctrine 
upon the accounts I have mentioned, the monstrous ah- 
mrdities of it, make it insupportable to any religion. I am 



206 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

very well assured of the grounds of religion in general, 
and of the Christian religion in particular; and yet I 
cannot see that the foundations of any revealed religion, 
are strong enough to bear the weight of so many and so 
great absurdities, as this doctrine of tran substantiation 
would load it withal. And to make this evident, I shall 
not insist upon those gross contradictions, of the same 
body being in so many several places at once; of our 
Saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to 
every one of his disciples, and yet still keeping himself 
to himself; and a thousand more of the like nature: but 
to show the absurdity of this doctrine, I shall only ask 
these few questions. 

1. Whether any man have, or ever had, greater evi- 
dence of the truth of any divine revelation, than every 
man hath of the falsehood of transubstantiation ? In- 
fidelity were hardly possible to men, if all men had the 
same evidence for the Christian religion which they have 
against transubstantiation, that is, the clear and irresisti- 
ble evidence of sense. He that can once be brought to 
contradict or deny his senses, is at an end of certainty; 
for what can a man be certain of, if he be not certain of 
what he sees ? In some circumstances our senses may 
deceive us, but no faculty deceives us so little and so 
seldom: and when our senses do deceive us, even that 
error is not to be corrected without the help of our 
senses. 

2. Supposing this doctrine had been delivered in scrip- 
ture, in the very same words that it is decreed in the 
Council of Trent, by what clearer evidence or stronger 
argument could any man prove to me that such words 
were in the Bible, than I can prove to him that bread 
and wine, after consecration, are bread and wine still ? 
He could but appeal to my eyes, to prove such words to 
be in the Bible, and with the same reason and justice. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 207 

might I appeal to several of his senses to prove to him, 
that the bread and wine, after consecration, are bread 
and wine still. 

3. Whether it be reasonable to imagine, that God 
should make that a part of the Christian religion which 
shakes, the main external evidence and confirmation of 
the whole ? I mean the miracles which were wrought 
by our Saviour and his apostles, the assurance whereof 
did at first depend upon the certainty of sense. For if 
the senses of those who say they saw them were deceived, 
then there might be no miracles wrought; and conse- 
quently it may be justly doubted, whether that kind of 
confirmation which God hath given to the Christian re- 
ligion would be strong enough to prove it, supposing 
transubstantiation to be a part of it: because every man 
hath as great evidence that transubstantiation is false, 
as he hath that the Christian religion is true. Suppose 
then transubstantiation to be a part of the Christian doc- 
trine, it must have the same confirmation with the whole, 
and that is miracles: but of all doctrines in the world, 
it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a miracle. 
For if a miracle were wrought for the proof it, the very 
same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the 
miracle, he hath of the falsehood of the doctrine, that is 
the clear evidence of his senses. For that there is a mira- 
cle wrought, to prove that what he sees in the sacrament 
is not bread but the body of Christy there is only the evi- 
dence of sense; and there is the very same evidence to 
prove, that what he sees in the sacrament is not the body 
of Christ but bread. So that here would arise a new 
controversy, whether a man should rather believe his 
senses, giving testimony against the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation, or bearing witness to a miracle wrought to 
confirm that doctrine; there being the very same evi- 
dence against the truth of the doctrine, which there is 



208 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

for the truth of the miracle: and then the argument for 
transubstantiation^and the objection against it, would just 
balance one another^ and consequently transubstantia- 
tion is not to be proved by a miracle, because that would 
he to prove to a man by something that he sees, that he 
doth not see lohat he sees. And if there were no other 
evidence that tran substantiation is no part of the Chris- 
. tian doctrine, this would be sufficient, that what proves 
the one, doth as much overthrow the other; and that 
miracles, which are certainly the best and highest ex- 
ternal proof of Christianity, are tlie worst proof in the 
world of transubstantiation, unless a man can renounce 
his senses at the same time that he relies upon them. 
For a man cannot believe a miracle without relying upon 
sense, nor transubstantiation without renouncing it. So 
that never were any two things so ill coupled together, 
as the doctrine of Christianity and that of transubstan- 
tiation, because they draw several ways, and are ready 
to strangle one another: for the main evidence of the 
Christian doctrine, which is miracles, is resolved into 
the certainty of sense, but this evidence is clear and 
point blank against transubstantiation. 

4. And, lastly, I would ask, what we are to think of 
the argument which our Saviour used to convince his 
disciples, after his resurrection, that his body was really 
risen, and that they were not deluded by a ghost or ap- 
parition? Is it a necessary and conclusive argument or 
not? ''And he said unto them. Why are ye troubled; 
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my 
hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath 
not flesh and bones as you see me have."-^ But now, 
if we suppose with the church of Rome the doctrine of 
transubstantiation to be true, and that he had instructed 
his disciples in it just before his death, strange thoughts 
* Luke xxiv. 38, 39. 



TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 209 

might justly have risen in their hearts, and they might 
have said to him: " Lord, it is but a few days ago since 
thou didst teach us not to believe our senses, but di- 
rectly contrary to what we saw, viz. that the bread which 
thou gavest us in the sacrament, though we saw it, and 
handled it, and tasted it to be bread, yet was not bread, 
but thine own natural body; and now thou appealest to 
our senses to prove that this is thy body which we now 
see. If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evi- 
dence, that things are what they appear to our senses, 
then we were deceived before in the sacrament, and if 
they be not, then we are not sure now that this is thy 
body which we now see and handle, but it may be per- 
haps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones; just 
as in the sacrament, that which we saw and handled, 
and tasted to be bread, was thy flesh and bones, under 
the form and appearance of bread. " Now, upon this 
supposition, it would have been a hard matter to have 
quieted the thoughts of his disciples: for if the argument 
which our Saviour used, did certainly prove to them, 
that what they saw and handled was his body, his very 
natural flesh and bones, because they saw and handled 
them, (which it were impious to deny,) it would as 
strongly prove, that what they saw and received before 
in the sacrament, was not the natural body and blood of 
Christ, but real bread and wine: and consequently, that 
according to our Saviour's arguing after his resurrection, 
they had no reason to believe transubstantiation before. 
For that very argument, by which our Saviour proves 
the reality of his body after his resurrection, doth as 
strongly prove the reality of bread and wine after con- 
secration. But our Saviour's argument was most infal- 
libly good and true, and, therefore, the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation is undoubtedly false. 
Upon the whole matter I shall only say this, that some 



210 A DISCOURSE AGAINST 

other points between us and the church of Rome, are 
managed by some kind of wit and subtlety, but this of 
transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impu- 
dence, and facing down of mankind. 

And of this the more discerning persons of that church 
are of late grown so sensible, that they would now be 
glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous doctrine. 
But the Council of Trent hath riveted it so fast into 
their religion, and made it to necessary and essential a 
point of their belief, that they cannot now part with it if 
they would^ it is like a millstone hung about the neck 
of popery, it will sink it at the last. 

And though some of their greatest wits, as Cardinal 
Perron, and of late. Monsieur Arnauld, have undertaken 
the defence of it in great volumes; yet it is an absurdity 
of that monstrous and massy weight, that no human au- 
thority or wit is able to support it. It will make the 
very pillars of St. Peter's crack, and requires more vol- 
umes to make it good than would fill the Vatican. 

And now I would apply myself to the poor deluded 
people of that church, if they were either permitted by 
their priests, or durst venture without their leave, to 
look into their religion, and to examine the doctrines of 
it. Consider and show yourselves men. Do not suffer 
yourselves any longer to be led blindfolded, and by an 
implicit faith in your priests, into the belief of nonsense 
and contradiction. Think it enough, and too much, to 
let them rook you out of your money, for pretended par- 
dons and counterfeit relics; but let not the authority of 
any priest or church, persuade you out of your senses. 
Credulity is certainly a fault as well as infidelity: and 
he who said, '' Blessed are they that have not seen^ and 
yet have believed f^ hath no where said, ''Blessed are 
they that have seen^ and yet have not believed^^^ much 
less, " Blessed are they that believe directly contrary to 
what they see. " 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 211 

To conclude this discourse. By what hath been said 
upon this argument it will appear, with how little truth 
and reason, and regard to the interest of our common 
Christianity, it is so often said by our adversaries, that 
there are as good arguments for the belief of transub- 
stantiation, as of the doctrine of the Trinity: when they 
themselves do acknowledge with us, that the doctrine of 
the Trinity is grounded upon the scriptures, and that 
according to the interpretation of them by the consent 
of the ancient fathers: but their doctrine of transub- 
stantiation I have plainly shown to have no such ground, 
and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men 
of their own church. And this doctrine of theirs being 
first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all divine 
warrant and authority, our objections against it from the 
manifold contradictions of it to reason and sense, are so 
many demonstrations of the falsehood of it. Against all 
which they have nothing to put in the opposite scale but 
the infallibility of their Church, for which there is even 
less colour of proof trom scripture than for transubstan- 
tiation itself. But so fond are they of their own inno- 
vations and errors, that rather than the dictates of their 
church, how groundless and absurd soever, should be 
called in question; rather than not have their will of us, 
in imposing upon us what they please, they will over^ 
throw any article of the Christian faith, and shake the 
very foundations of our common religion: A clear evi- 
dence that the church of Rome is not the true mother, 
since she can be so well contented that Christianity 
should be destroyed, rather than the point in question 
should be decided against her. 



APPENDIX. 



Note A. 

On page 103, we referred to the massacre in Paris, 
in the time of Gregory XIII. The following particulars 
of that horrid transaction, could not then be conveniently 
introduced, they are, therefore, here thrown in a note. 

On the 24th of August, A. D. 1572, this storm burst 
upon the Protestants^ the day of the massacre of Paris, 
which began a general slaughter of Protestants over the 
kingdom, in which the number taken off is computed at 
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. The horrors of that night 
are not to be conceived, much less expressed. The 
fatal signal being given by the tolling of the bell of St 
Germain, the butchery began. ^ Coligni, the Admiral of 
France, was murdered in his own house, his body thrown 
out of his window, and treated with the vilest indigni- 
ties. The murderers ravaged the whole city of Paris, 
and butchered, in three days, above i^n thousand lords, 
gentlemen, presidents, counsellors, advocates, lawyers, 
scholars, physicians, merchants, tradesmen, and others. 
Mothers, maidens, and children, were all involved in the 
destruction, and the gates and entrances of the king's 
palace all besmeared with their blood. And yet, as 
though this had been the most heroic transaction, and 
would shed immortal glory over the authors of it, medals 
were struck at Paris in honour of it, on the face of which 
was the French king sitting on a throne, with this in- 
scription, "Viiitis in rebellesj^^ ^ ^Virtue against rebels^" 
and on the reverse, '^Pietas excitcivitjustitiam^^^ ''Piety 
hath roused justice:" and when the news of this horrible 
masacre reached Rome, a jubilee was granted, and the 

T 2 



214 APPENDIX. 

people were commanded to go every where to church, 
and bless God for the success of the action: and it was de- 
creed that the pope should march with his cardinals to the 
church of St. Mark, and in the most solemn manner give 
God thanks for so great a blessing conferred on the See 
of Rome, and on the Christian world.* 

Note B. 

On the same page we referred to the persecution which 
followed the revocation of the Edict of Nantz. The fol- 
lowing particulars are given in this place, for the reason 
above specified:— 

The year 1685 will ever be remembered as a most 
fatal year to the Protestant religion. Louis XIV. had 
been for some years breaking the whole Protestant in- 
terest within his dominions. He was a king grossly ig- 
norant in matters of religion, and bigoted in the extreme. 
Old Ruvigny, the deputy general of the churches, seeing 
the king bent on violent measures, told him he must 
beg a full hearing of him upon that subject; and he ob- 
tained one that lasted some hours. He told him what 
the state of France was during the wars in his father^s 
reign; how happy France had been now for fifty years, 
occasioned chiefly by the quiet it was in with relation to 
the Protestants. He gave him an account of their num- 
bers, their industry, and their wealth, their constant 
readiness to advance the revenue, and that all the quiet 
he had with the Court of Rome, was chiefly owing to 
them: if they were routed out, the Court of Rome would 
govern as absolutely in France, as it did in Spain. He 
desired leave to undeceive him, if he had been induced 
to believe that they would all change, as soon as he en- 
gaged his authority in the matter: many would go out of 
the kingdom, and carry their wealth and industry into 
* Memoirs of Jane, Queen of Navarre, p. 22. 



APPENDIX. 215 

other countries. In fine, he said, it would come to the 
shedding of much blood; many would suffer, and others 
would be precipitated into desperate courses; so that his 
reign would become a scene of blood and horror. The 
king, though he listened very attentively to these consid- 
erations, yet was not in the least impressed by them. 
He replied, that he considered himself so indispensably 
bound to endeavour the conversion of all his subjects, 
and the extirpation of heresy, that, if the doing it should 
require, that with one hand he should cut off the other, 
he would submit to that, ^fter tliis, Ruvigny gave all 
his friends hints of what they were to look for. 

"Mr. De Louvoy, seeing his master so set on the 
the matter," says Bishop Burnet, ''proposed to liim a 
method, which he believed would shorten the work, and 
do it effectually: which was, to let loose some bodies of 
dragoons to live upon the Protestants on discretion. 
They were put under no restraint, but only to avoid 
rapes, and the killing them. This was begun in Bern. 
And the people were so struck with it, that seeing they 
were to be eat up first, and, if that prevailed not, to be 
cast into prison, when all was to be taken from them, till 
they should change; and, being required only to promise 
to reunite themselves to the church, they, overcome with 
fear, and having no time for consulting together, did 
universally comply. This did so animate the court, that 
upon it the same methods were taken in most places of 
Guienne, Languedoc, and Dauphine, where the greatest 
number of the Protestants were. A dismal consterna- 
tion and feebleness ran through most of them, so that 
great numbers yielded. Upon which the king, now re - 
solved to go through with what had been long projected, 
published an edict, [in October, 1685,] repealing the edict 
of Nantz, in which (though that edict was declared to 
be a perpetual and irrevocable law) he set forth, that it 



216 APPENDIX. 

was only intended to quiet matters by it, till more 
effectual ways should be taken for the conversion of 
heretics. He also promised in it, that, though all the 
public exercises of that religion were now suppressed, 
yet those of that persuasion who live quietly, should 
not be disturbed on that account, while, at the same 
time, not only the dragoons, but all the clergy, and the 
bigots of France, broke out into all the instances of rage 
and fury against such as did not change upon their being 
required in the king's name to be of his religion; for that 
was the style every where. 

^^Men and women of all ages, who would not yield, 
were not only stript of all they had, but kept long from 
sleep, driven about from place to place, and hunted out 
of their retirements. The women were carried into nun- 
neries, in many of which they were almost starved, whip- 
ped, and barbarously treated. Some few of the bishops, 
and of the secular clergy, to make the matter easier to 
some, drew formularies importing that they were resolved 
to reunite themselves to the Catholic church, and that 
they renounced the errors of Luther and Calvin. People 
in such extremities are easy to put a stretched sense on 
any words that may give them present relief. So it was 
said, what harm was it to promise to be united to the 
Catholic church: and the renouncing those men's errors, 
did not renounce the good and sound doctrine. But it 
was very visible, with what intent those subscriptions or 
promises were asked of them : so their compliance in that 
matter was a plain equivocation. But, how weak and 
faulty soever they might be in this, it must be acknow- 
ledged, here was one of the most violent persecutions that 
is to be found in history. In many respects it exceeded 
them all, both in the several inventions of cruelty, and in 
its long continuance. I went over a great part of France 
while it was in its hottest rage, from Marseilles to Mont' 



APPENDIX. £17 

pelier, and from thence to Lyons, and so to Geneva. I 
saw and knew so many instances of their injustice and 
violence, that it exceeded even what could have been 
well imagined; for all men set their thoughts on work to 
invent new methods of cruelty. In all the towns 
through which I passed, I heard the most dismal ac- 
counts of things possible; but chiefly at Valence, where 
one D'Herapine seemed to exceed even the furies of 
inquisitors. One in the streets could have known the 
new converts, as they were passing by them, by a 
cloudy dejection that appeared in their looks and deport- 
ment. Such as endeavoured to make their escape, and 
were seized, (for guards and secret agents were spread 
along the whole roads and frontiers of France,) were, if 
men, condemned to the gallies, and, if women, to mo- 
nasteries. To complete this cruelty, orders were 
given that such of -the new converts, as did not at 
their death receive the sacrament, should be denied 
burial, and that their bodies should be left where 
other dead carcases were cast out, to be devoured by 
wolves and dogs. This was executed in several places 
with the utmost barbarity; and it gave all people so 
much horror, that finding the ill effect of it, it was 
let fall. This hurt none, but struck all that saw it, 
even with more horror than those sufferings that were 
more felt. The fury that appeared on this occasion, 
did spread itself with a sort of contagion: for the in- 
tendants and other officers, that had been mild and 
gentle in the former parts of their life, seemed now 
to have laid aside the compassion of Christians, the 
breeding of gentlemen, and the common impressions of 
humanity. The greatest part of the clergy, the regu- 
lars especially, were so transported with the zeal that 
their king shewed on this occasion, that their sermons 
were full of the most inflamed eloquence that they 



£18 APPENDIX. 

could invent, magnifying their king in strains too inde- 
cent and blasphemous to be mentioned by me."* 

Note a 

On the same page we referred also to the persecution 
of the Waldenses. 

Though all impartial historians bear testimony to the 
purity of life and manners of these people, yet they were 
aspersed by their enemies, the papists, with the vilest 
calumnies. But this w^as not all: they were charged 
with heresies. Mock conferences were held, by which 
it was pretended to give these unfortunate people an op- 
portunity of defending their tenets. But the papal ar- 
mies, by fire and faggot, soon decided all controversies. 
Ra3^mond, Count of Toulouse, provoked by the extreme 
injustice of the papal domination, strongly protected his 
Waldensian subjects, and in all probability took the 
life of Peter de Chateauneuf, a monk, who was carrying 
on among that people the papal measures of cruelty and 
injustice. Innocent, who never intended to decide the 
controversy by argument, on occasion of the unhappy 
murder of the monk before mentioned, had despatched 
preachers throughout Europe, to collect all who were 
willing to revenge the innocent blood of Peter of Cha- 
teauneuf^ promising Paradise to those who should bear 
arms for forty days, and bestowing on them the same in- 
dulgences as he did on those who undertook to conquer 
the Holy Land. ''We moreover promise," says he, in 
his bull, 'Ho all those who shall take up arms to revenge 
the said murder, the pardon and remission of their sins. 
And since we are not to keep faith with those who do 
not keep it with God, we w^ould have all to understand, 
that every person, who is bound to the said earl Ray- 
mond by oath of allegiance, or by any other way, is ab- 

* Bishop Burnet's History of his own times, vol. iii. p. 58. 



APPENDIX. 219 

solved by apostolical authority from such obligations^ 
and it is lawful for any Roman Catholic to persecute the 
said earl, and to seize upon his country,'' &c. ''We 
exhort you, that you would endeavour to destroy the 
wicked heresy of the Albigenses,* and do this with more 
rigor than you would use towards the Saracens them- 
selves: persecute them with a strong hand: deprive 
them of their lands and possessions: banish^them, and 
put Roman Catholics in their room.'' Such was the 
Pope's method of punishing a whole people for a single 
murder committed by Raymond. 

As a consequence of this, three hundred thousand y^- 
grims, induced by the united motives of avarice and su- 
perstition, filled the country of the Albigenses with car- 
nage and confusion for a number of years. The reader, 
who is not versed in history of this kind, can scarcely 
conceive the scenes of baseness, perfidy, barbarity, inde- 
cency, and hypocrisy, over which Innocent presided^ 
and which were conducted partly by his legates, and 
partly by tlie infamous earl Simon of Montfort- But let 
it suffice to have said this in general: it is more to our 
purpose to observe the spirit of the people of God in 
these grievous tribulations. The castle of Menerbe on 
the frontiers of Spain, for v/ant of water, was reduced to 
the necessity of surrendering to the Pope's legate. A 
certain abbot undertook to preach to those who were 
found in the castle, and to exhort them to acknowledge 
the Pope. But they interrupted his discourse, declaring 
that his labour was to no purpose. Earl Simon and the 
legate then caused a great fire to be kindled; and they 
burned a hundred and forty persons of both sexes. 

* The term Albig-enses, or rather Albienses, was probably 
taken from the town of Albi; where the Waldenses flourished. 
They were called Albigenses, and in doctrine and manners, were 
not at all distinct from the Waldenses. 



220 APPENDIX. 

These martyrs died in triumph, praising God that he had 
counted them worthy to suffer for the sake of Christ' 
They opposed the legate to his face, and told Simon, that 
on the last day, when the books should be opened, he 
would meet with the just judgment of God for all his 
cruelties. Several monks entreated them to have pity 
on themselves, and promised them their lives if they 
would submit to the popedom. But the Christians 
^ 'loved not their lives to the death:''* only three women 
of the company recanted. " 

''A monk inquisitor, named Francis Borelli, in the 
year 1380, armedwithabullof Clement VII. undertook 
to persecute the godly Waldenses. In the space of 
thirteen years he delivered a hundred and fifty persons 
to the secular power, to be burned at Grenoble. In the 
valley of Fraissinere and the neighborhood, he appre- 
hended eighty persons, who also were burned. The 
monkish inquisitors adjudged one moiety of the goods of 
the persons condemned to , themselves, the rest to the 
temporal lords. What efforts may not be expected, when 
avarice, malice, and superstition unite in the same 
cause?" 

''About the year 1400, the persecutors attacked the 
Waldenses of the valley of Pragela. The poor people 
seeing their caves possessed by their enemies, who as- 
saulted them during the severity of the winter, retreated 
to one of the highest mountains of the Alps, the mothers 
carrying cradles^ and leading bv the hand tliose little 
children who were able to walk. Many of them were 
murdered, others were starved to death: a hundred and 
eighty children were found dead in their cradles, and 
the greatest part of their mothers died soon after them. 
But why should I relate all the particulars of such a 
scene of infernal barbarity? 

* Rev. xii. /. 



APPENDIX. £21 

In 1460, those of the valley of Fraissiniere were per- 
secuted by a monk of the order of Friar Minors, or 
Franciscans, armed with the authority of the archbishop 
of Ambrun. And it appears from documents preserved 
till the time of Perrin, that every method which fraud 
and calumny could invent, was practised against them. 

In the valley of Loyse, four hundred little children 
were found suffocated in their cradles, or in the arms of 
their deceased mothers, in consequence of a great quan- 
tity of wood being placed at the entrance of the caves 
and set on fire. On the whole, above three thousand 
persons belonging to the valley were destroyed, and this 
righteous people were in that place exterminated. 

The Calabrian Waldenses sent to Geneva in the year 
1560, to request a supply of pastors. Two, namely, 
Stephen Negrin, and Lewis Paschal, were sent into Ca- 
labria, who endeavoured to establish the public exercise 
of Protestantism. Pope Pius lY. having notice of this, 
determined to extirpate a people who had presumed to 
plant Lutheranism, — so he called their religion, ►—so 
near to his seat. What follows of the history of this 
people is a distressful scene of persecution. Numbers 
of them being murdered by two companies of soldiers, 
headed by the Pope's agents, the rest craved mercy for 
themselves, their wives, and children, declaring, that if 
they were permitted to leave the country with a few 
conveniences, they would not return to it any more. 

A certain youth, named Samson, defended himself a 
long time against those who came to apprehend him. 
But being wounded, he was at length taken and led to 
the top of a tower. Confess yourself to a priest here 
present, said the persecutors, before you be thrown 
down. I have already, says Samson, confessed myself 
to God. Throw him down from the tower, said the in- 
quisitor. The next day the viceroy passing below near 



APPENDIX, 

the said tower, saw the poor man yet alive, with all his 
bones broken. He kicked him with his foot on the head, 
saying, is the dog yet alive? give him to the hogs to eat. 

Stephen Negrin was starved to death in prison, and 
Lewis Paschal was conveyed to Rome, where he was 
burned alive in the presence of Pius IV. That tyrant 
feasted his eyes with the sight of the man in the flames, 
who had dared to call him anti-christ. 

In the parliament of Aix, in the year 1540, one of 
the most inhuman edicts recorded in history, was 
pronounced against the Provenpal Christians. It was 
ordered that the country of Merindol should be laid 
waste, and the woods cut down, to the compass of two 
hundred paces round. The name and authority of 
king Francis I. was obtained by surprise, and the revo 
cation of the edict, which he afterwards sent to the par- 
liament on better information, was suppressed by the 
persecutors. The murders, rapes, and desolations, 
were horrible beyond all description. In particular, a 
number of women were shut up in a barn full of straw, 
which was set on fire^ and a soldier, moved with com- 
passion, having opened a place for them, that they might 
escape, these helpless victims of papal rage were driven 
back into the flames by pikes and halberts. Other cruel- 
ties were practised on this occasion, so horrid, that they 
might seem to exceed belief, were not the authenticity 
of the accounts unquestionable.* 

Note D. 
On page 180, in Tillotson's discourse on transubstan- 
tiation, reference is made to a fragment of Irenaeus, pre- 
served by (Ecumenius. It may surprise the Protestant 
reader to learn that Dr. Trevern, Bishop of Strasbourg, 
and late Bishop of Aire, quotes this same fragment to 
* Milner's Church History, vol. iii. p. 341. 



APPENDIX. 



prove the very opposite of what it is quoted by Tillotson 
to prove, and his argument is to the following purport: 

"From the. very first, Christians were accused of cel- 
ebrating a Thyestean banquet in their accursed myste- 
ries. To elicit the truth, they were frequently and vio- 
lently tortured. Invariably, however, they denied the 
charge. Now, if they had esteemed the elements in 
the Eucharist purely symbolical, why did they not give 
an explanation of the matter, which would at once 
have liberated them from torture ? Yet, in no recorded 
instance, did they give any such exposition. Therefore 
they must consciously have held the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation."* 

In the first place I would observe that the Bishop of 
Strasbourg, by quoting this fragment to prove his own 
point, has sanctioned its authority, so that there can 
be no dispute with us as to that particular. 

In the next place I remark, that Mr. Faber, in his 
"Difficulties of Romanism," makes this same frag- 
ment of Irenseus the basis of an argument, which is 
as follow^s: 

"Through a recorded misapprehension of the true na- 
ture of the Eucharist, the pagans fancied that the early 
Christians literally devoured human flesh and liter- 
ally drank human blood. To procure a confession of 
this enormity, they applied the torture : but the Chris- 
tians invariably denied the existence of any such abomi- 
nation in their religious ceremonial. Now they could 
not with truth have denied its existence, if they had held 
the doctrine of transubstantiation; for, in that case, they 
must have been conscious, that, according to their full 
knowledge and belief, they were in the constant habit of 
literally devouring human flesh and of literally drinking 
human blood. Yet under the most severe torments, 
♦Fab. Diff. Horn. p. 11^, 



224 APPENDIX. 

they invariably and totally denied the fact. Therefore, 
by denying the fact, they of necessity denied also the 
doctrine of transubstantiation.''* 

''In the first place, the charge of eating literal human 
flesh and of drinking literal human blood in the celebra- 
tion of the Eucharist was, as we have already found, 
constantly and explicitly denied by them: and, in the 
second place, it is difficult to conceive, under their cir- 
cumstances, what possible benefit could have resulted 
from a formal explanation of their doctrine. They were 
tortured for the express purpose of forcing a confession, 
that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, they devoured 
literal human flesh and drank literal human blood. Now 
any such explanation, as the bishop would have us ex- 
pect from them, would plainly amount to a denial of 
the charge; which denial they had already made in so 
many vvords: and it would be further attended only 
with the eftect of making their persecutors view them in 
no better light than that of specious but dishonest equivo- 
cators. Where then would have been the utility of the 
required explanation? The sum and substance of the 
account, given by Irenseus, is this. On the evidence of 
their slaves, who had heard their masters say that the 
Eucharist v/as the body and blood of Christ, the Chris- 
tians of Lyons were tortured in order to extort a con- 
fession, that they literally ate human flesh and literally 
drank human blood in the celebration of the eucharistic 
mysteries. Such, in form, was the charge brought 
against the Christians. But this charge, even upon the 
rack, they uniformly and constantly and firmly denied.^^i 

A further account of the matters spoken of in the 

fragment of Irenseus, is given in the epistle from the 

churches of Vienne and Lyons to the churches of Asia 

and Phrygia, as preserved by Eusebius. The same ac- 

* Fab. Diff. Rom. p. 117. f Ibid. 119. 



APPENDIX. ££5 

cusation is made against the Christians; and the same 
explicit denial is given, not only by Sanctus and Blan- 
dina, but by all the faithful. According to the state- 
ment given in this epistle, Blandina was a Christian 
slave of a Christian mistress, while Sanctus was a dea- 
con of the church of Vienne. The latter, therefore, as 
an ecclesiastic, must certainly have well known the real 
doctrine of the Eucharist. With these the epistle men- 
tions Epagathus, a youthful believer, Maturis, a recently 
baptized mysta. Attains, the very column and basis of 
the church, Byblis, a Christian woman, Ponticus, a boy 
of fifteeen years, and the venerable bishop Pothinus, 
stooping under the burden of more than nine decades. 
Young and old, male and female, bond and free, eccle- 
siastic and laic, they all equally denied the participa- 
tion of literal human flesh and literal human blood in 
the celebration of the Eucharist. Under such circum- 
stances, by what imaginable possibility they could all 
have been transubstantialists, exceeds my powers of 
comprehension, ^"t 

Note E. 
The following abstract of a letter of Mary^ Queen of 
William III. , in answer to one in favour of Popery from 
her father, then on the throne of Great Britain; as it is 
a good summary of the grounds of the Protestant faith, 
finds a very appropriate place at the close of the discus- 
sion in which we have just been engaged. She says in 
her letter, that ''she was far from sticking to the reli- 
gion in which she was bred out of a point of honour; for 
she had taken much pains to be settled in it upon better 
grounds. Those of the Church of England who had in- 
structed her, had freely laid before her that which was 

* See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 1. 
t Faber's Diff. Rom. p. 118. 



226 APPENDIX. 

good in the Romish religion, that so, seeing the good 
and the bad of both, she might judge impartially 5 ac- 
cording to the apostle's rule of proving all things, and 
holding fast that which was good. Though she had 
come young out of England, yet she had not left behind 
her either the desire of being well informed, or the 
means for it. She had furnished herself with books, and 
had those about her who might clear any doubts to her. 
She saw clearly in the scriptures, that she must work 
her own salvation with fear and trembling; and that she 
must not believe by the faith of another, but according 
as things appeared to herself. It ought to be no preju- 
dice against the reformation, if many of those who pro- 
fessed it, led ill lives. If any of them lived ill, none of 
the principles of their religion allowed them in it. Many 
of them led good lives, and more might do it by the grace 
of God. But there were many devotions in the church 
of Rome, on which the reformed could set no value. 

''She acknowledged, that, if there was an infallibility 
in the church, all other controversies must fall to the 
ground. But she could never yet be informed where 
that infallibility was lodged : whether in the pope alone, 
or in a general council, or in both. And she desired to 
know in whom the infallibility rested, when there were 
two or three popes at a time, acting one against another, 
with the assistance of councils, which they called general : 
and, at least, the succession was then much disordered. 
As for the authority that is pretended to have been given 
to St. Peter over the rest, that place which was chiefly 
alleged for it was otherwise interpreted by those of the 
church of England, as importing only the confirmation 
of him in the office of an apostle, when, in answer to that 
question, Simon^ son of Jonas ^ lovest thou me? he had, 
by a triple confession, washed off his triple denial. 
The words that the king had cited were spoken to the 



APPENDIX. 227 

other apostles as well as to him. It was agreed by all, 
that the apostles were infallible, who were guided by- 
God's Holy Spirit. But that gift, as well as many others, 
had ceased long ago. Yet, in that, St. Peter had no 
authority over the other apostles: otherwise St. Paul un- 
derstood our Saviour's words ill, who withstood him to 
hisface^ because he was to be blamed. And, if St. Peter 
himself could not maintain that authority, she could not 
see how it could be given to his successors, whose bad 
lives agreed ill with his doctrine. 

^'Nor did she see, why the ill use that some made of the 
scriptures ought to deprive others of them. It is true, all 
sects make use of them, andtind somewhat in them that 
they draw in to support their opinions; yet, for all this, 
our Saviour said to the 3ews,search the scriptures: and St. 
Paul ordered his epistles to be read to all the saints in 
the churches; and he says in one place, I write as to wise 
men, judge ivhat I say. And if they might judge an 
apostle, much more any other teacher. Under the law 
of Moses, the Old Testament was to be read, not only 
in the hearing of the scribes, and the doctors of the law, 
but likewise in the hearing of the women and children. 
And, since God has made us reasonable creatures, it 
seemed necessary to employ our reasons chiefly in the 
matters of the greatest concern. Though faith was above 
our reason, yet it proposed nothing to us that was con- 
tradictory to it. Every one ought to satisfy himself in 
these things: as our Saviour convinced Thomas, by mak- 
ing him to thrust his own hand into the print of the 
nails, not leaving him to the testimony of the other 
apostles, who were already convinced." 

*^Thus, she concluded, she gave him the trouble of a 
long account of the grounds upon which she was per- 
suaded of the truth of her religion: in which she was so 
fully satisfied, that she trusted, by the grace of God, 



228 APPENDIX. 

that she should spend the rest of her days in it; and she 
was so well assured of the truth of our Saviour's words, 
that she was confident that the gates of hell should not ^ 
prevail against it, but that he would be with it to the 
end of the world. All ended thus, that the religion 
which she professed, taught her her duty to him, so that 
she should ever be his most obedient daughter and 
servant. '' 

Bishop Burnett, after giving the above abstract of 
Queen Mary's letter, observes, ^'I had a high opinion 
of the princess' good understanding, and of her know- 
ledge in those matters, before I saw this letter; but this 
surprised me. It gave me an astonishing joy, to see so 
young a person, all of the sudden, without consulting 
any one person, to be able to write so solid and learned 
a letter, in which she mixed, with the respect that she 
paid a father, so great a firmness, that by it she cut off 
all further treaty. And her repulsing the attack, that 
the king made upon her, with so much resolution and 
force, did let the popish party see, that she understood 
her religion, as well as she loved it."^ 

* Bishop Burnet's History of his own time. Vol. iii. p. 152-156. 











V Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesi 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 



*^^ A V Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

C • Troatmont Fiato- Ian OnOR 



^* ^'4'*^ "^ci* PreservationTechnologies ^ 

^ ♦rf'""*'^* (j*" vS> A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION ^ 

M o ''Lj) \ik i < • "^ 111 Thomson Park Drive 

•• ^ ^0 ^^ /y>^** -r CranberryTownship, PA 16066 



-^^n^ 



10* 



«'^^" -o />^-\o^ ^> *^-^-\y ' 










,Ho*. 



• V ' 








^^ 



'^^. N.MANCWESTER 







.CL. 



